Tuesday, February 8, 2000 · BLACK HISTORY MONTH 2000 Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, the first Black History Month of the 21st century officially began at midnight on

CANADA

2nd SESSION • 36th PARLIAMENT • VOLUME 138 • NUMBER 24

OFFICIAL REPORT(HANSARD)

Tuesday, February 8, 2000

THE HONOURABLE GILDAS L. MOLGATSPEAKER

This issue contains the latest listing of Senators, Officers of the Senate, the Ministry,and Senators serving on Standing, Special and Joint Committees.

Debates: Chambers Building, Room 943, Tel. 996-0193

Published by the SenateAvailable from Canada Communication Group— Publishing, Public Works and

Government Services Canada, Ottawa K1A 0S9,Also available on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca

CONTENTS

(Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue.)

547

THE SENATE


The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.

Prayers.

VISITORS IN THE GALLERY

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before I callSenators’ Statements, I should like to draw your attention tosome distinguished visitors in our gallery. We are honoured tohave the presence of His Excellency Boris Trajkovski, Presidentof the Republic of Macedonia, accompanied by His ExcellencyJordan Vesilenov, the Ambassador of the Republic of Macedoniato Canada.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I wish you welcome tothe Senate of Canada.

Honourable senators will know that there are many youngCanadians presently stationed in Macedonia. That country hasbeen extremely helpful in the efforts of Canada to bring peace tothe Balkans.

As well, I should like, honourable senators, to drawyour attention to the presence in the gallery of theHonourable Gary Carr, the Speaker of the Legislative Assemblyof Ontario, accompanied by Mr. Claude DesRosiers, Clerk of theLegislative Assembly.

Welcome to the Senate of Canada.

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS

BLACK HISTORY MONTH 2000

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, the first BlackHistory Month of the 21st century officially began at midnight onJanuary 31, 2000. I marked it by attending the Annual BlackHistory Month Kick-Off Brunch in Toronto with ProfessorGeorge Elliott Clarke, the Honourable Lincoln Alexander andJudge Stanley G. Grizzle.

The celebration of black history has come a long way since1926. It was then that Carter G. Woodson, a black Americanhistorian, educator and publisher, founded Negro History Weekin response to the prevailing rationale that Africans and people ofAfrican descent were without history. Woodson, who is known asthe father of black history, wanted to honour the contributions,experiences and stories of black people in America. He chose the

second week of February, which marks Abraham Lincoln’sapproval of the thirteenth amendment to the AmericanConstitution abolishing slavery, and also the birthday of aprominent black advocate, Frederick Douglass.

Carter Woodson’s goal was not only to educate his owncommunity about its rich heritage but also to make Americansociety aware of the contributions made by their fellow blackcitizens. It was only in 1976, during the U.S. bicentennial, thatthe commemoration week was expanded into National BlackHistory Month.

Here in Canada, the now-defunct Canadian Negro Women’sAssociation was the first to mark the month in Toronto in 1950.It was only formally recognized by that city as Black HistoryMonth in 1978. In 1993, the month was officially proclaimed inOntario to mark the two-hundredth anniversary of legislationintroduced by Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe toprohibit the importation of slaves into Upper Canada.

February was officially decreed as Black History Month acrossCanada in 1995. Over the past six years, it has evolved into anationwide celebration and tribute to the contributions made byblack Canadians. In Nova Scotia, there are more than 160 eventsplanned in honour of black history. The theme of our celebrationis “Passing the Torch, Lighting our Future,” in recognition of thenew millennium and the need to pass on a sense of culture toour youth.

I always consider Black History Month a time when greatfriendships and understanding among communities of every raceand ethnicity can be fostered. The events of this monthencourage a harmony between cultures which I hope will inspireus to reach year-round. I am happy that Black History Monthserves as a reminder.

For my part, I will be participating directly in speakingengagements in more than 14 events this month, including a galahosted by the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers in honourof black judges in Canada; a reception hosted by the HighCommission for South Africa in recognition of the tenthanniversary of Mr. Nelson Mandela’s walk from prison onFebruary 11, 1990; and a reception with poet-author andplaywright George Elliott Clarke, whose critically acclaimedplay Whylah Falls will be performed at the National Arts Centreat the end of the month.

Events such as these support the importance and value ofdiversity among Canadians. I hope that all honourable senatorswill get a chance to enjoy a little of Black History Month.

548 February 8, 2000SENATE DEBATES

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

FORT LIARD MEETING—MOTION ON OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, this is myfirst statement in the Senate. I am honoured to rise on behalf ofthe people of the Northwest Territories. On January 25 and 26 ofthis year, chiefs and other aboriginal leaders met in Fort Liard inthe Northwest Territories to discuss oil and gas developmentissues and, particularly, the prospects of a Mackenzie Valleypipeline from the Arctic to southern Canada and the UnitedStates. Members may recall that in the mid-1970s a huge gaspipeline was proposed to be built by multinational corporationsdown the Mackenzie Valley to bring Arctic-Alaskan natural gasto southern markets.

That issue prompted the federal government to establish theBerger inquiry, which dealt with numerous issues surroundingthe construction of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Mr. ThomasBerger, at the conclusion of the inquiry, stated:

...that if a pipeline were built now in the Mackenzie, itseconomic benefits would be limited, its social impactdevastating and it would frustrate the goals of native claims.

Mr. Berger concluded that there ought to be a 10-yearmoratorium on the construction of a gas pipeline. Thegovernment of the day abided by the recommendations and nopipeline was built.

It has been approximately 23 years since Mr. Berger made hisrecommendations, and many positive changes have occurred forthe peoples of the North.

Aboriginal peoples of the North are much more able to dealwith developments such as mines and pipelines. Education level,experience in technological work and confidence of people totake part in development has grown. Land claims have been orare being settled with most of the aboriginal peoples of theNorth. Government of the Northwest Territories has evolved intoresponsible government. People have experience with oil and gasdevelopment and small pipelines.

People generally are better able to deal with developmentssuch as large pipelines that are being proposed, once again, in theMackenzie Valley. Therefore, at the Liard meeting, the chiefspassed the following motion:

We, the Aboriginal Peoples of the Northwest Territories,agree in principle to build a business partnership tomaximize ownership and benefits of a Mackenzie Valleypipeline.

The message that the chiefs and the aboriginal leaders wish tomake is that, yes, times have changed. Aboriginal peoples are nolonger opposing projects, such as huge gas pipelines traversingtheir lands. However, they intend to be involved in all aspects ofthe project — the planning, the route selection, construction and,most important, ownership of the pipeline.

Honourable senators, the stance of this motion is significantfor all peoples of the North. Those of us who have been involvedin government and the politics of the North know the difficulttimes that aboriginal peoples of the North have gone through thepast few decades. It has been a struggle for their rights and togain their rightful place in northern society. This motion marksthe start of a new era of hope and a willingness to participate aspartners, not to be bystanders in economic projects such asmassive gas pipelines. If governments and the oil and gasproducers can heed this new approach and be willing partners,the future of the North bodes well for all people living in theNorthwest Territories.

THE LATE HALINKA DYER

TRIBUTE

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I rise today topay tribute to someone whom I consider to be one of the unsungheroes of the Senate. I recently suffered the untimely loss of myoffice assistant and friend Halinka Dyer. On December 21, 1999,the world lost the loving wife of David, the devoted mother ofJay, Jordan, Spencer and Matthew, the daughter and sister of theTubin family and, as well, a good friend to many of us. This wasa loss that I will never be able to properly transform into writtenwords that would properly justify the impact Halinka had on somany different individuals.

• (1420)

Halinka was first a devoted, loving wife and mother, as Imentioned earlier. To me, she was a rare find as a work partnerand a friend. Her brilliant mind and exemplary organizationalskills provided my office and the office of others who sought heradvice and assistance with a resource possibly not replaceable inone’s short lifetime. Her zest for life and positive outlook shonethroughout the Victoria Building as she went around being theoutstretched hand to all.

I have chosen to pay tribute to this young person we lost at46 years young for two reasons: to thank her family for sharingHalinka and to thank her friends who recommended her to myoffice and to me. She epitomized the vibrant life from herjogging regimen, which I foolishly tried to share with her onoccasion, to the way she made everyone feel at home when theyvisited my office.

However, the real reason I have risen today is to bring to theforefront what I feel must be a priority for all of us and requiresour immediate attention. We lost Halinka to the dreaded diseaseof breast cancer — a disease that takes from us ourgrandmothers, mothers, wives, daughters, sisters and nieces inhuge numbers much too early in life. No, they are not a vocalspecial interest group that seeks publicity and attention in adisproportionate manner; they are too busy as mothers,grandmothers and wives giving of themselves and never askingin return for anything more than unconditional love.

549SENATE DEBATESFebruary 8, 2000

Our Halinka was one of these, and it is in that spirit that shealways projected herself. That is why today I ask each and everysenator in this place to take up the cause, if you have not alreadydone so. One just never knows — if we all do a little bit, we canand will make a difference in the fight against this dreadeddisease.

Honourable senators, I have had the privilege of being part ofthis place and having served in the other place. I find it hard tobelieve that we as Canadians have not committed more fundingto fight breast cancer. I should have recognized this urgencysooner myself. However, I do now commit to do more from thisday forward on this most crucial matter.

Halinka, your memory will live on forever and you willbe missed.

[Translation]

TOPONOMY COMMISSION OF QUEBEC

Hon. Lise Bacon: Honourable senators, on November 18 oflast year, in response to a request by Mr. Guiseppe Sciortino andMr. Enrico Riggi, the Commission de toponymie du Québecagreed to change the name of the Papineau-Leblanc bridge tohonour the memory of our old friend and colleague, PietroRizzuto. These two gentlemen were supported in theirapplication to the commission by a number of public figuresfrom various backgrounds.

In supporting this initiative, those men and women wished tocelebrate the memory of this son of Italy who came to Montrealin the early 1950s with no resources other than his intelligence,courage and native wit, speaking neither English nor French, andwho went on to become a respected and prosperous Canadianbusinessman.

By naming such an important structure in his honour, thesupporters of Pietro Rizzuto also wanted to mark his devotion tothe Quebec and Canadian communities. Mr. Rizzutodemonstrated that commitment through a wholehearted desire tofully integrate within the society that had taken him in. He alsoproved it through his political activity. For Pietro Rizzuto, it wasperfectly normal to devote a large part of his energies to thewell-being of a country which had made his businessaccomplishments possible, and where he and his wife, Pina,raised their family.

Unfortunately, the plan to give recognition to the career of anadmirable man led to controversy. Increasing numbers of protestsforced Mr. Sciortino and Mr. Riggi to defend the commission’sdecision.

As a matter of principle, some opposed the very idea ofchanging the name of a structure. I am not prepared to debatehere the merits and lack thereof of such a practice. It is, however,important to remember that it has already been used to honourthe memory of famous Quebecers, and occurs regularly in Franceand elsewhere. We can only hope, in the name of intellectual

rigour, that the determined and zealous defenders of Quebec’stoponymic tradition would have been just as determined if theCommission de toponymie had rechristened thePapineau-Leblanc bridge in honour of Camille Laurin or GéraldGodin.

Had the opponents of the project been content to discuss thepros and cons of toponymic changes, the debate raised by thedecision of the Commission de toponymie could have beendefended for those close to Pietro Rizzuto.

Unfortunately, doubt was cast on the reputation of PietroRizzuto by some who wanted to judge the merits of the man.Untruths were written, and unfounded rumours circulated. PietroRizzuto and his family did not deserve such treatment.

While certain remarks unfairly cast doubt on the reputation ofPietro Rizzuto, certain politicians for their part did not acthonourably. There are the MPs and ministers who failed to seizethe opportunity to establish ties between the communities. Thereis, as well, the mayor, incapable of keeping his word, whosuddenly changed his mind in the face of a petition. Finally, thereis the minister, who, ever ready to put on the mantle of virtue,declared that Pietro Rizzuto deserved better than this debate butfound nothing better to do than hide behind his officials, refusingto honour his responsibilities.

In immortalizing the name of our former colleague, thesupporters of the Pietro Rizzuto bridge hoped to celebrate thesignificant contribution made by the various culturalcommunities to Quebec society. For over 100 years, immigrantsfrom the four corners of the planet have settled alongside thedescendants of the French and English colonists and members ofthe First Nations. Like Pietro Rizzuto, they helped develop andenrich Quebec.

The important contribution made by these new citizens toQuebec society must be recognized for what it is worth. Withoutneglecting our past, toponymy must also reflect the reality ofQuebec society. This was the aim of the initiative taken byMr. Sciortino and Mr. Riggi.

[English]

VIMY HOUSE

Hon. Norman K. Atkins: Honourable senators, I should liketo again draw the attention of the members of the Senate to VimyHouse. During Question Period in December, Senator Boudreauindicated that he wanted to familiarize himself with this facility.I wish to report that he fulfilled that commitment and that both ofus visited the facility on January 11, 2000.

For those members who do not know about Vimy House, it isa facility that stores a large number of national war treasures thatare not able to be displayed at the Canadian War Museum. Infact, it was the personnel at Vimy House who supervised therestoration of the eight paintings that hang in this chamber.

[ Senator Atkins ]


As some honourable senators are aware, I keenly support theinitiative to build a new Canadian war museum adjacent to theNational Aviation Museum in Rockcliffe, a facility which wouldallow considerably more of our national collection to be puton display.

Each time I tour Vimy House, I am amazed at the number ofwar-related paintings and drawings by Canadian andinternational artists that Canadians are not being given theopportunity to view and enjoy, not to mention the artifacts,artillery and vehicles that are stored, packaged or crated whichrepresent the memories of various wars, conflicts andpeacekeeping missions in which our Canadian militaryhas participated.

The more exposure that Canadians have to these artifacts, themore they would understand the incredible sacrifice andinvolvement of Canadians who served in the different theatres ofwar. It would enable Canadians to understand more thoroughlywhy veterans and members of our Legion are so proud and feelso strongly that Canadians never forget their contribution forpeace and freedom, nor take for granted the freedom that all ofus enjoy.

• (1430)

Honourable senators, I hope you will find time to visit VimyHouse so that you will understand how important it is to supportthe campaign to build the new Canadian War Museum.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

ALZHEIMER’S AWARENESS MONTH

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, I risetoday to highlight the fact that January was Alzheimer’sAwareness Month. Alzheimer’s Awareness Month is sponsoredby the Alzheimer’s Society, which consists of a national office,10 provincial organizations and a number of local groups acrossthe country.

Alzheimer’s disease is a progressive, degenerative disease ofthe brain that gradually destroys vital brain cells. There is noknown cause or cure. However, this disease is age related.Therefore, as the senior population rises so will the number ofAlzheimer’s patients.

Today, in Canada, approximately 300,000 people are said tosuffer from this disease. However, 30 years from now it is saidthat the number of Alzheimer’s patients will more than double toover 750,000 individuals nationwide. Without planning or astrategy to deal with such a rise, there will likely be tremendousimplications. The most obvious are the effects on our health caresystem and budgets. However, if there are not enough resourcesor support systems available to deal with the rising numbers,there could also be a negative impact on the quality of life ofAlzheimer’s patients and their primary caregivers.

Stephen Rudin, of the Alzheimer’s Society of Canada, spokeabout the impending crisis in a recent article on this issue, anissue that he feels will grow slowly but steadily over the nextfew years.

The largely volunteer-driven Alzheimer’s organizationscontinue to work tirelessly in delivering their many services topatients and their families. Moreover, some have also begun towork with provincial governments, recognizing the need for anoverall strategy to combat the disease. For example, the societyin Prince Edward Island is working to develop a strategy forcaring for people affected by Alzheimer’s disease and relateddementia, which they will present to the Government of PrinceEdward Island later this month. The goal of this strategy is todevelop a coordinated system of care based on the unique needsof those with the disease. The steps taken thus far by provincialorganizations and government are positive and should becongratulated. However, they are only the beginning. More studyand awareness of this disease, as well as the coordination ofservices, is needed.

That said, I look forward to studying some of the health careimplications surrounding this disease when the Standing SenateCommittee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology begins itsstudy into health care in Canada this month.

[Translation]

SUPREME COURT

DECISION ON RIGHT TO FRANCOPHONE SCHOOLIN SUMMERSIDE, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Hon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: Honourable senators, I wish todraw attention to an important decision regarding educationalrights recently handed down by the Supreme Court.

In Arsenault-Cameron, the Supreme Court ruled that parentsof French-speaking children in Summerside were entitled, underthe Constitution, to have a French-language school. The criterionthat there had to be a sufficient number of students — between49 and 155 — had been met. This criterion is based both onknown demand and on the total number of students that mighteventually take advantage of the service offered.

In this case, the refusal of the Government of Prince EdwardIsland to follow the advice of the Commission scolaire de languefrançaise and to establish a school for French-speaking childrenliving in Summerside had the effect of depriving these childrenof a school near their place of residence and negating thecorrective character of section 23 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court also held that, while provincialgovernments must “do whatever is practically possible” to ensurecompliance with section 23 of the Charter, this provision wasalso intended to “give effect to the equal partnership of the twoofficial-language groups in the context of education”. The courtthus recognized that the official-language minority was entitledto the right provided for in section 23 of the Charter. In so ruling,it expressly conferred a collective right.

The Supreme Court also admitted that the concept of realequality required that the minority in question be treateddifferently from the majority in order for the level of educationprovided to be equivalent. Each case, of course, must be judgedon its merits.


THE LATE ANNE HÉBERT

TRIBUTE

Hon. Lucie Pépin: Honourable senators, on Saturday,January 22, a beacon of French Canadian and Quebec literatureleft us. Anne Hébert, the author of Kamouraska and the recipientof the Prix Femina in 1982 for her book In the Shadow of theWind, died in Montreal at the age of 83, following a battle withcancer.

Anne Hébert was born on August 1, 1916,in Fossambault-sur-le-Lac, which is now calledSainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, a small village located40 kilometres northeast of Quebec City. She grew up in a familyenvironment that was conducive to the blossoming of her talent.Her father, who was of Acadian descent, was a respected poetand literary critic, and a member of the Royal Society of Canada.Of noble descent through her mother, Anne Hébert spent hersummers as a child and a teenager either in Sainte-Catherine orin Kamouraska, in a setting that included marine vistas, sweepingcountryside and forests. Anne Hébert never stopped recreating inher books the days of her youth spent in nature, alwaysdisplaying great sensitivity.

In 1939, Anne Hébert published her first poems in periodicals.Her talent as a poet was quickly recognized. In 1943, her firstcollection of poems, Les songes en équilibre, won her third prizefor the Prix Athanase-David. That first recognition marked thebeginning of a series of about 20 highly coveted national andinternational awards for Anne Hébert, between 1943 and 1999.

Anne Hébert also had to overcome a number of obstacles, as isunfortunately the case for too many of our artists. Even after shewon third prize for the Prix Athanase-David, in 1943, publishersrefused to publish her second book, The Torrent. She had to get itpublished at her own expense by the Éditions du Bien public, inTrois-Rivières. Her masterpiece, Tomb of the Kings, suffered thesame fate.

Anne Hébert was the first francophone woman scriptwriter atthe National Film Board, and she was undaunted by thelimitations placed on the women of her day. Not all intellectualand literary circles were inclined to open their inner sanctums towomen. Madame Hébert refused to accept the imposition ofsilence that weighed on the women of her day, and took up herpen to write of her revolt against the fetters imposed on hergender. Her works and her character were extremely stimulatingsources of inspiration for women. Anne Hébert created somevery powerful characters, determined and independent women,free in their own way. She left her mark on a whole generation ofwomen, by challenging the restricted roles society assigned tothem and male-female relationships. In 1982, she was to becomea role model for girls and women with a passion for literature,such as Gabrielle Roy, Marie-Claire Blais and Antonine Maillet,in receiving the highly prestigious Prix Femina literary award forher book In the Shadow of the Wind. Her contribution toimproving the living conditions of Canadian women is a hugeone.

Anne Hébert’s literary legacy is one of truth, sensitivity,strength and passion. She succeeded in reconciling conflictingvalues and shared her dreams with us.

When Pierre Nepveu spoke at the Bibliothèque nationale duQuébec, in January 1995, when presenting the PrixGilles-Corbeil awarded by the Fondation Émile-Nelligan, hedescribed the works of Anne Hébert as follows:

The literary works of Anne Hébert show us what isessential and noblest about romanticism: Reality lives andhas meaning only through the passion that springs from it,through that inner core made of light and darkness, ofangels and demons.

Anne Hébert, you will remain forever present in our hearts, inour culture, in our history, in our spirit.

[English]

• (1440)

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

NISGA’A FINAL AGREEMENT AND APPENDICESNISGA’A NATION TAXATION AGREEMENT

TABLED

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government):Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the Nisga’a FinalAgreement with appendices, and the Nisga’a Nation TaxationAgreement.

FISHERIES

REPORT OF COMMITTEE REQUESTING AUTHORIZATIONTO ENGAGE SERVICES AND TRAVEL PRESENTED

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, I have thehonour to present the second report of the Standing SenateCommittee on Fisheries, which requests that the committee begranted powers related to its examination of matters relating tothe fishing industry.


The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries has thehonour to present its

SECOND REPORT

Your Committee, which was authorized by the Senate onDecember 7, 1999, to examine and report upon the mattersrelating to the fishing industry and to present its report nolater than December 12, 2000 respectfully requests that it beempowered to engage the services of such counsel andtechnical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary,and to adjourn from place to place within Canada for thepurpose of its examination.

[ Senator Comeau ]


The budget was considered by the Standing SenateCommittee on Internal Economy, Budgets andAdministration on Thursday, December 9, 1999. In itsSecond Report, the Committee noted that it is undertaking areview of the budgetary situation pertaining to SenateCommittees, and recommended that no more than 6/12 ofthe funds be released until February 10, 2000. The reportwas adopted by the Senate on Tuesday, December 14, 1999.

Respectfully submitted,

GERALD J. COMEAUChair

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall thisreport be taken into consideration?

On motion of Senator Comeau, report placed on the Orders ofthe Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government):Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate andnotwithstanding rule 58(1)(h), I move:

That when the Senate adjourns today, it do standadjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 9, 2000, at1:30 p.m.;

That at 3:30 p.m. tomorrow, if the business of the Senatehas not been completed, the Speaker shall interrupt theproceedings to adjourn the Senate;

That should a division be deferred until 5:30 p.m.tomorrow, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings at3:30 p.m. to suspend the sitting until 5:30 p.m. for thetaking of the deferred division; and

That all matters on the Orders of the Day and on theNotice Paper, which have not been reached, shall retain theirposition.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL CODE

BILL TO AMEND—FIRST READING

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a messagehad been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-202,to amend the Criminal Code (flight).

Bill read first time.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall thisbill be read the second time?

On motion of Senator Hays, bill placed on the Orders of theDay for second reading on Thursday next, February 10, 2000.

FINANCING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

NOTICE OF INQUIRY

Hon. Norman K. Atkins: Honourable senators, I give noticethat on Tuesday, February 15, 2000 I shall call the attention ofthe Senate to the financing of post-secondary education inCanada and particularly that portion of the financing that is borneby students, with a view to developing policies that will addressand alleviate the debt load with which post-secondary studentsare being burdened in Canada.

QUESTION PERIOD

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

AUSTRIA—POSSIBLE RECALL OF AMBASSADOR IN RESPONSETO APPOINTMENT OF JOERG HAIDER IN NEW GOVERNMENT

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition):Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of theGovernment in the Senate. Could the minister advise whether thegovernment has any intention of recalling the Canadianambassador to Austria in order to assess the appropriate uniqueCanadian response to the participation of Joerg Haider and hisFreedom Party in the new Austrian coalition government?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government):Honourable senators, I have no information at this time that suchan action is contemplated. However, I can certainly relay thequestion to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and InternationalTrade and in due course reply to the honourable senator.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, yesterday ourMinister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Axworthy, following meetingswith Jaime Gama, the Foreign Minister for Portugal, andChristopher Patten, the Commissioner for External Affairs of theEuropean Union, said that Canada will follow the EuropeanUnion’s lead on Austria.

When will the government take the lead on matters that are soclearly issues in which Canada, with its interest in and record onhuman rights, should be a leader rather than following the lead?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I have no doubt thatthe minister is in touch with the ambassador and the officials ofthe Canadian government in Austria. I am not aware of anyspecific actions that are planned or any specific comments thatwill be made publicly by the minister at this time.


HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

JOB CREATION PROGRAMS—POSSIBLE MISMANAGEMENT OFFUNDS—REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTSUSED BY PRIME MINISTER IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, it is a sadstate of affairs when the government uses its resources and theresources of the bureaucracy to turn legitimate work of membersof Parliament, whatever their political stripe, on behalf of theirconstituents into a dirty propaganda tool — “cheat sheets” asthey were described in today’s National Post.

Would the Leader of the Government in the Senate undertaketo obtain the documents and letters provided to the PrimeMinister by the government leader in the other place and whichthe Prime Minister was using yesterday to avoid answering directquestions about the boondoggle at HRDC?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government):Honourable senators, I am not specifically aware of whatdocuments may have been used in the other place with respect toanswers given during Question Period.

It is important that this matter be put into context, and thereference to a boondoggle places on me the responsibility to, atleast, attempt to do that. I do so without demeaning in any wayeither the importance of an internal audit — and I stress the word“internal” — or the necessity of acting on the results of thatinternal audit.

However, I must point out to the honourable senator thatHuman Resources Development Canada operates programs inthe range of $3 billion. Seven of those programs, constituting$1 billion, were subject to audit. The balance of $2 billionwere not.

• (1450)

Within that $1-billion envelope some 459 files were selected atrandom by the auditors. Those 459 files represented expendituresof approximately $200 million. We have now come down from$3 billion to a range of about $200 million. Of those 459 files,some 37 were flagged for further action. The value of the37 flagged for further action was approximately $33 million. Ofthe $33 million that was flagged in the audit, approximately$11 million to $12 million has been dealt with to the satisfactionof the auditors. In fact, the balance is now being activelyreviewed.

One must have this context in mind when discussing thiswhole issue.

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, the minister hasdone a good job of reading the talking points issued by the PrimeMinister’s Office. In fact, they appeared in the newspaper theother day.

However, the minister did not answer my question. If he hadwatched Question Period yesterday, he would have seen thatevery time a member of the opposition asked a question on this

subject they did not receive an answer. Instead, members of theopposition had read to them letters they had legitimately placedon file. In effect, the government is creating a situation wherebymembers of Parliament are not able to do their work on behalf oftheir constituents.

I ask the minister again: Will he table those documents? Inparticular, will he obtain for senators the documents to which thePrime Minister referred, as well as all letters and documents insupport of projects in Saint-Maurice written by or on behalf ofJean Chrétien, the MP for that riding?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the context in whichI have attempted to set this matter is important. The real questionis whether or not the facts that I have placed before the Senateare correct, regardless of where they originated.

I did not watch Question Period yesterday. Unfortunately,I was committed to other duties. However, I suspect that what thePrime Minister may have been attempting to do is similar to theeffort that I should like to make here today; that is, to say that theseven programs that were subject to audit are good programs.They have provided jobs for Canadians.

It is speculation on my part, but perhaps the Prime Ministerwas attempting to make a point with which opposition membersalso agree, that these are good programs and that they haveimproved the lives of their constituents.

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, the Leader of theGovernment in the other place had a file folder full of all thecorrespondence written by members of Parliament in support ofprojects in their ridings. It is obvious that the government wasable to produce these documents rapidly. At the same time,however, it is unable to account for millions and millions ofdollars and the supporting papers.

Again, I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate totable in this place those documents and, in particular, copies ofall letters written in support of projects in the riding ofSaint-Maurice by Member of Parliament Jean Chrétien. Surely,there must be a big tab of letters in that book under his name.

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, there probably isnot one member of Parliament who has not written a letter insupport of a project under one of these seven programs. I do notknow if it is reasonable to ask for copies of all those letters.

We must come back to the context, which is that we are nowdealing with audit objections and deficiencies. We are dealingwith audit deficiencies which can range anywhere from failure tohave a supporting receipt for an expense to anything else in thespectrum. The total under discussion has now been reduced toabout $20 million.

What may be interesting to the honourable senator is that whenshe looks at the 37 projects that were selected for auditdiscrepancies or deficiencies, she will see that 29 of the 37 — infact, the vast majority of them — were in the Youth EmploymentProgram, the Social Development Program or the Learning and

[ Senator Boudreau ]


Literacy Program. Experience has shown that these organizationsare not always as sophisticated as large companies might be. Inmany of these cases, they were not able to complete all therequirements as necessary. If the honourable senator were to takea balanced look at the situation and put it into context, she wouldsee that 29 of those 37 cases were in those three programs, all ofwhich are very good.

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I should like toknow in which of those categories Wiarton Willie falls.

Senator Boudreau: In HRDC, there are approximately30,000 individual files or cases. There are some that all of us,I am sure, would wish had been dealt with in a more effectiveand efficient way. As a matter of fact, the auditors found37 such files which have to be addressed. The minister hasindicated that she has been addressing them and will continueto do so.

Let us not put these programs at risk. In my area of thecountry, as is the case for many senators on both sides of thisplace, these programs are extremely important and have donegreat work. We cannot put these programs at risk because of thisparticular issue.

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, the government hasput them at risk by singling out members of Parliament whowrote legitimate letters to the department on behalf of theirconstituents. As a result, members of Parliament will never againwant to support government programs in their ridings for fearthat what they say will be used as part of the propaganda.

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, that may be true ofsome members of Parliament. However, I doubt it will be true ofmany. Honourable members have written in support of theseprograms, which is important and should continue if they believethat the program is a good one and that their constituents canbenefit from it. I believe they will continue to write as they havein the past because they value these programs.

POVERTY

REQUEST FOR PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE CONDITIONS

Hon. Douglas Roche: Honourable senators, my question isdirected to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Over theChristmas recess, two important reports dealing with socialconditions in Canada were released. The first report was from theProgressive Conservative National Caucus Task Force onPoverty, and it contains many valuable recommendations whichare premised on the following remarkable sentence:

Above all, we were humbled by the depth and magnitude ofpoverty in Canada...

The second report to which I refer is the Liberal task force onWestern Canadian issues which also addresses poverty and inwhich it is stated:

The face of poverty is getting younger. Children living inpoverty are more likely to end up in the sex and drug trade,drop out of school or become involved in crime.

In light of these two reports which cross party lines, I shouldlike to ask this question of the minister: If we cannot end massivepoverty in Canada with the present robust economy, withunemployment dropping, with the stock market roaring andgovernment surpluses building, then when will we be able todo so?

• (1500)

Since there is strong support across party lines for action, willthe government now make poverty eradication an all-out nationalpriority?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government):Honourable senators, I thank the honourable senator for thatquestion. It is an important, indeed pivotal, issue for governmenttoday. The response of government with respect to the programinvolving the homeless is one element of a renewed commitmentto deal with our social problems in a way that will be positiveand productive.

I had heard, as an aside, that perhaps some of the homelessmight benefit from some of the HRDC programs now underdiscussion.That may be true. If you look at the statistics withrespect to poverty among our unemployed youth and their levelsof education and their corresponding opportunities for jobs, thenyou realize just how important programs of learning and literacy,and other social development programs, can be. It is acomprehensive problem.

Senator Di Nino: Remember the GST!

Senator Boudreau: I will certainly take the honourablesenator’s views to my colleagues in cabinet.

Senator Roche: I thank the honourable minister. The ministermentioned the homeless in his answer. I ask him if he has notedin the Liberal task force on Western Canada the statement that, inEdmonton, an estimated 42 per cent of the city’s homeless areaboriginal. The task force says that urban aboriginal youth areparticularly at risk, and so I ask the minister if, in theforthcoming budget, there will be some special attention to thisserious problem.

Senator Boudreau: The honourable senator will, of course,know that I am not in a position to indicate specific measuresthat will be contained in the budget. However, he highlights asignificant problem with urban aboriginal youth that exists acrossthe country but is particularly evident in the western provinces,and in cities such as Winnipeg. While some of the programs thatare available nationally — including the new program for thehomeless — will be of assistance, there is a need to look to whatmore can be done. I am certainly supportive of the senator’sviews, and whenever the opportunity arises, I make thatsame point.


INDUSTRY

NOVA SCOTIA—LOSS OF JOBS AT ROYAL BANK OFFICES IN HALIFAX

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, my question isfor the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Halifax is losing 310 Royal Bank customer service andadministrative support positions as part of that bank’s nationalrestructuring of service delivery. Those jobs are to be relocated inToronto and Montreal this July, and will affect 340 staff membersin two downtown Halifax locations. The bank claims that thisshift is one of several initiatives to reduce costs by as muchas $500 million by the year 2001, reductions that are needed toensure that the bank is positioned to resist expected foreigncompetition. The Royal Bank had originally planned to cut thesecosts in a merger with the Bank of Montreal in 1998, but thatplan was quashed when the federal regulators refused to allowthe merger.

My question is: If the merger of the Royal Bank and the Bankof Montreal was stopped by the federal government to, amongother things, protect Canadian consumers, how do they proposeto protect hundreds of consumers, who are also Royal Bankemployees and who, as a direct result of government action, arenow facing layoffs?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government):Honourable senators, that question presumes a connection that,had the merger gone ahead, there would be no closures and nojob losses in Halifax.

Senator Oliver: That was not the premise.

Senator Boudreau: I have difficulty making that connection,to believe that that would be the case.

Senator Kinsella: Why?

Senator Boudreau: In fact, jobs are being lost, and it is aserious matter. I must say, however, that at the moment theeconomy in Halifax is very healthy. The unemployment rate is, Ibelieve, at an all-time low. One would hope that any displacedemployees who did not have an opportunity to seek employmentwith the bank elsewhere would have an opportunity to find newemployment in Halifax in a similar field or in one that would besatisfactory for them.

Senator Oliver: For 340 people?

PURCHASE OF CANADA TRUST BY TORONTO-DOMINIONBANK—REQUEST FOR FIGURES ON RESULTANT LOSS OF JOBS

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, the Minister ofFinance recently approved the amalgamation of theToronto-Dominion Bank and Canada Trust. That gives rise to aquestion related to the question asked by my colleague, SenatorOliver. There is no question that there will be major disruption,not only in jobs but also probably in services.

Could the Leader of the Government tell us, or at least find outfor us, how many jobs the Finance Minister or the FinanceDepartment estimated would be lost in the country as a result ofthis amalgamation? Did they address the issue of services tocommunities, in particular smaller communities that may nothave adequate banking services after the amalgamation?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government):Honourable senators, I can certainly make the inquiries requestedby the honourable senator with respect to those particular items.

As I indicated in my previous answer, the best protection forany displaced employees as a result of such an amalgamation is ahealthy economy that produces jobs that will offer themalternative employment. In fact, some companies had indicatedthat they would be interested in the Halifax area, but feared thatthe employment availability would not be such as to support thetype of operation they had in mind.

What we are trying to do is create a healthy and vibranteconomy and allow people choices, so that if a particular jobdisappears because of commercial activity, then they will have anopportunity to seek other employment.

However, with respect to the specific question the honourablesenator asked, I will attempt to get that information.

HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

JOB CREATION PROGRAMS—POSSIBLE MISMANAGEMENTOF FUNDS—RESPONSIBILITY OF MINISTER

Hon. Michael A. Meighen: Honourable senators, my questionis also to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It relatesto the Prime Minister’s seeming abandonment of the hallowedparliamentary principle of ministerial responsibility. Before sodoing, however, I wish to ask the leader about some of thecomments he made in response to the question put to him bySenator LeBreton. With the greatest respect, I do not think heanswered her question.

Senator LeBreton: No, he did not.

Senator Meighen: The leader seems to take the view that thisis a good program, and I will not argue that point,notwithstanding that it would appear that some recipientsreceived more than they asked for, while others were not evenasked for an accounting. Assuming these were all wonderfulprograms, does the Leader of the Government not agree that atleast basic accounting and accountability standards should berespected? Whether the matter amounts to 37 programs or357 programs, it is still public money that is at issue; if it ispublic money that is at issue, then we must adopt the strictestpossible standards. That seems to have been forgotten in thisdebate, and it is up to us as parliamentarians, surely, to insist thatthe very strictest standards be adhered to. Clearly, that has notbeen the case.

[ Senator Meighen ]


There is one important thing I do not understand, and perhapsthe leader can shed some light on it for me. This Prime Minister,who has endorsed in many statements over his parliamentarycareer the principle of ministerial accountability, appears now tobe abandoning it and saying that the minister is not responsible.

• (1510)

I should like to know, if it is not the minister’s responsibility,who is responsible? Perhaps the Leader of the Government couldalso assure me that that responsibility will not be foisted off on tothe backs of some junior bureaucrats.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government):Honourable senators, I am glad to hear that the senator supportsthose seven programs. At least, I think he supports them.

Senator Meighen: I did not say that. I said. “...even if they aregood.”

Senator Boudreau: Most people in the country would alsosupport those programs.

I have said previously, in setting the context, that it isimportant for a responsible department to generate internal auditsfrom time to time. This department has generated a number ofinternal audits over the years. There was an internal audit acouple of years ago and there was one in 1991, when anothergovernment was in office.

Senator Kinsella: What is your point?

Senator Boudreau: There has been, on a regular basis, ageneration of internal audits. Action must be taken when theresults of those internal audits come to the minister, who isultimately responsible.

Senator Kinsella: Is the minister responsible or not?

Senator Boudreau: That responsibility is being discharged bythis minister. After the internal audit came to her attention, whichis now a public record, a program was put in place to deal with it.I am not confident that in 1991 there was such a program inplace.

Senator Meighen: Honourable minister, if we are to take yourview that this is a little accounting problem, what would youthink of an outside independent private-sector auditor coming into get to the bottom of this to reassure the Canadian public?


Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I would say thatalready one-third of the audited files have been remedied. Theothers will be dealt with quickly. The Prime Minister has madethe commitment that if any monies were inappropriately granted,those funds will be repaid.

The issue goes beyond the present discussion. The goal is toimprove the delivery of ongoing programs and to ensure thatthese problems are prevented in the future. Our response goes farbeyond an audit.

Hon. W. David Angus: Honourable senators, the shockingmismanagement of funds at HRDC clearly demonstrates that thisLiberal government has failed to be accountable to the people ofCanada.


Senator Angus: Although the Transitional Jobs Fund was setup specifically to give ministerial discretion to encourage jobcreation in high unemployment regions, it has been used,apparently, as a political tool to pork-barrel certain ridings.

Some Hon. Senators: Shame!

Senator Angus: Honourable senators, the internal audits todate have only been samples, with a very low level of materiality,and have revealed that millions of dollars have been spent with,to say the least, improper processes in regard to record keeping,project tracking, using funds or completing application forms.

We are told that, in some cases, there are no application formsat all on record. That is totally unacceptable to the people ofCanada, Mr. Minister.

My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate is— and I do not envy him having to put his finger in thisparticular crumbling dike — in light of the serious nature of thisissue, will the government provide full, unexpurgated,uninterrupted and complete audit rights to the Auditor General,and will it hand over all the files pertaining to the granting of allthe funds to an independent external examiner?


Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, again, it isimportant for all of us to reaffirm the value of these projects andthe individual recipients. I have already gone through the list of37 projects. When I look at the Canadian Paraplegic Association,I note that that is the type of program that is at risk as a result ofirresponsible criticism.

Some Hon. Senators: Shame!

Senator Boudreau: The honourable senator has asked for anaudit of all the files, all 30,000, by an independent auditor. Ithink they would be able to retire quite a few of their partners onthat one, honourable senators, and I do not think that is likely tohappen.

Senator Angus: As a final supplementary —

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I am sorry, SenatorAngus. You can come back to this tomorrow.


Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government):Honourable senators, I would suggest that leave is in order,certainly, for Senator Angus to complete his series of questionsand have responses from the leader.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I am sorry, but I heard“no” from some honourable senators. We must stick to the rules;that is something I wish to do.

I will now call Delayed Answers.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition):No, no. Point of order.

Senator Angus: Cover-up!

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition):The unanimous decision of the Senate cannot be overturned bythe Speaker.

Senator Kinsella: It is the practice of this house that senatorsrun the Senate. The Deputy Leader of the Government hasconsented to hearing a supplementary question from SenatorAngus. That is the consent of the house. That is the order of thehouse.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: It was unanimous.

Senator Taylor: Was it unanimous? I do not remember itbeing unanimous.

Senator Kinsella: Stand up, Senator Angus; ask yourquestion.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is there unanimousconsent to hear Senator Angus?


Senator Angus: Honourable senators, in simple terms, I urgethe Leader of the Government to please assure all honourablesenators that senior officials or others who are under the directionof this government have not and will not destroy, doctor, alter,fudge, lose or otherwise forget about any documents whatsoeverpertaining to the distribution of monies under the TransitionalJobs Fund.

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I can give no moreassurance of that than I can give for what the honourable senatordid yesterday.

Senator Stratton: What about the citizens?

[Translation]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NISGA’A FINAL AGREEMENT BILL

SECOND READING—DEBATE CONTINUED

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the HonourableSenator Austin, P.C., seconded by the Honourable SenatorFairbairn, P.C., for the second reading of Bill C-9, to giveeffect to the Nisga’a Final Agreement.

Hon. Aurélien Gill: Honourable senators, I would like to pickup the thread of my first speech. I know that my general remarksof last November moved a number of you and that was myintent. The final agreement with the Nisga’a gives me anopportunity to go further and to clarify my thoughts on the newpartnerships we must envisage for our future.

For over half a century now in Canada we have been full ofgood intentions and fine words. Even in the early 1960s, thefederal government spoke through the Hawthorne-Tremblaycommission report of its desire to encourage the economicindependence of the First Nations quickly.

This was followed by the creation of many forums forconsultation and thought. In the process, we inherited more orless suitable political structures. The provincial associations ofthe 1960s are a fine example. In order to have us meet itsexpectations in matters of discussions, the government wanted aninterlocutor of its own stature; it created a mirror image of itself.Intentions were clear, the yoke of economic dependence had tobe broken, and we had to fly on our own within a prosperousCanada.

The idea was good, but perhaps it was too simplistic, becauseeconomics and politics are linked — is that surprising? If, inpolitical terms the proposals did not meet expectations —remember, we were talking about taking responsibility — whatwas the issue? For us it was to administer our dependence.

We looked after our affairs by taking on the responsibilitiesdesigned and defined by the Department of Indian Affairs. Howironic! We put on moccasins that did not fit and a shirt that didnot suit. Today, we know very well that the idea was notpromising. It maintained the system of band councils and gavethe problem itself a second wind. Indian band meant Indianreserve and that always boils down to promoting marginality.

That is obviously the crux of the matter. No economic orpolitical advances can be made if our rights are not trulyrespected, if we are not in a position to exercise those rights. Ourpast secures our place in the future. It was not until the 1970s,after the tribulations of the 1969 white paper, that the concepts ofterritories and resources were raised. Since they were buried inour historic amnesia, we unearthed them.

[ Senator Gill ]


The Nisga’a Nation, like so many other First Nations, played amajor role in these efforts to turn back the tide, to show that wecould not hope to survive and certainly not to develop if we weredenied access to our ancestral lands and resources. The Nisga’aused the legal system to breathe new life into their age-oldclaims.

To speak of our rights is to speak of treaties, treaties that havebeen forgotten, ignored, set aside, and never signed, as was thecase for a great part of what is now British Columbia, as was thecase for the greater part of the province of Quebec, before theagreements signed with the Cree, the Inuit and the Naskapi. Tospeak of our ancestral rights, whose existence is now recognizedin the Canadian Constitution, is to speak of our future.

The great injustices we suffered have been addressed in thecourts. Since Calder in 1973, the Supreme Court of Canada hascontinued to promote the cause of the First Nations.

We all agree that the issue is complex and difficult to resolvein law. I would like to mention in passing the contribution madeby Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer who in effect paved the way in theCanadian justice system with respect to the First Nations.

We are not there yet, but we are on the right track. Ouraboriginal rights have been recognized in principle. I say inprinciple because they must still be given a modern form to carrythem into the future. Once again, and this bears repeating, toomany Canadians are reacting badly to what is in fact an historicachievement.

Finally, the Nisga’a agreement includes all the minimumrequirements to allow a nation to be responsible for its future.This agreement should serve as a model. I insist on that point.The agreement must be presented to all Canadians, not only in itsbest light, but also as an example, because the opponents to theagreement are actually opposed to its strongest qualities. Somesay the agreement is unconstitutional because it creates a newlevel of government in the political structure, something whichrequires a constitutional change. Does our Constitution notrecognize the inherent rights of aboriginal people? Do ourcollective rights not imply that we enjoy self-government? Whatis the point of having rights if we cannot exert them?

In other words, the Nisga’a agreement is the ultimate test ofour good intentions. Generally speaking, the country would wantFirst Nations to be themselves and to fly on their own. But whenthe time comes for them to take flight, they are prevented fromspreading their wings. People complain about turbulence, aboutthe space being taken. The Nisga’a Nation will indeed haveauthority over a territory that it has not stolen. A communitycannot govern itself on the basis of abstract notions of law.Resources, institutions, space and an identity are all required.This is where the critical notion of sharing takes on its full

meaning. Canadians must realize that a sharing of powers islooming on the horizon.

The Nisga’a Nation is finally coming back home, to a land thatit had been stripped of, a land where its people had becomestrangers, like so many other First Nations in Canada. It will nowhave control in the form of a just and normal presence which willgive it back its sense of identity. This is restitution, no less. Theoptions are so well defined that it is now possible to think thatthe Nisga’a will be able to take stock of their own resources andproceed to tax the wealth that will be generated. Who couldoppose this true enfranchisement? A yoke has been broken. Thisis the way to break a vicious circle.

Some oppose the Nisga’a agreement on the ground that itsettles only one of the 40 or so claims in British Columbia alone.This can be scary for Canadians. Yet, there are reasons for themto be reassured. Creating a form of self-government whosestructure takes into account existing traditions, concretelyrecognizing ancestral territories, developing new skills, takingstock of the natural resources that will help generate wealth,promoting “identity-based” conservation measures through thenormal and minimum institutions that allow a community tocontrol its destiny, maintaining bridges based on cooperation andsharing, these are all reasons for us to be reassured.

In the Innu language, we would call the Nisga’a “kanikantet”,or scouts. Their path is well marked. If we make good use of it,their accomplishments will open up better horizons for us.

However, do we know how to make good use of them? Thatseems difficult. The real opposition to the Nisga’a agreement isthe outcome of a great historic insensitivity, as I said in my firstspeech. Many Canadians react badly and with prejudice, withoutgiving thought to the treaties and to rights, without taking intoaccount the centuries of injustices.

The Nisga’a agreement seems disturbing, surprising, a thorn inthe side of our national tranquillity. As long as thismisunderstanding persists, no degree of maturity can be attainedin this fundamental debate. The clinching argument makes apretext of raising the problem of ethnic governments, claimingthat Canada must not create political structures that are based onthe cultural distinction of a given community. I agree that theissue does arise, and that the principle involved is a touchy one.However, can it be raised with some care? To deny us the right toexist politically based on our distinct cultural qualities puts anend to the debate on our aspirations. To the best of myknowledge, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, the Nisga’a areNisga’a, and their claims have always reflected their identity.

• (1530)

If there is no place in tomorrow’s Canada for the First Nationsas a specific culture, let it be clearly stated. It needs to be said,and then the destruction of what we are and what we have beencan continue. Let there be no more trumpeting of culturaldiversity of the founding nations if no one has the desire toacknowledge that diversity with political fact.


Our future governments will not be “ethnic”; they will be thereflection of what we are entitled to be. This involves sharing,partnership. The more we are what we are, the more opennessthere will be between us. A distinct identity does not require thecultures to be separated; in fact, the opposite would be the case.A culture that is comfortable with itself can be open with others.It attracts interest. Its “ethnicity” is a positive reality.

I have already stressed urgency. Now I shall focus oncreativity, novelty, imagination. We have all been in error inacting as if Canada were a completed country. It is a work inprogress, it is a challenge.

In order to be successful, we must innovate, imagine new waysof belonging to it. Being a Canadian should not be an abstractconcept. It will be something that is lived out, experienced andgiven expression to. We have much to give this country, but willwe ever attain our rightful place?

Law alone is not enough. A fair resolution to the First Nations’claims seems to be the last chance to drive away all our olddemons. I say this out loud, knowing that it makes usuncomfortable. The Canadian identity is a work in progress —even today. History has shown that people have always wanted toreduce this identity to a sort of homogeneity that does not exist.

When it comes to cultural diversity, Canada must leave behindits apathy. Imagination is called for. We must get rid of oldLoyalist colonial tendencies and fleur-de-lys nationalism.

No, Canada is neither English nor French. Biculturalism is anirrelevant concept which only serves to inflame old grudges thatunfortunately still exist. If an original Canadian culture finallysurfaces one day, it will be a synthesis of the best features of thevarious identities and cultures that have been a part of thiscountry’s existence for over 500 years.

We will finally have overcome our old visions, visions thatpitted one culture against another. We are at the first stage of thishistory. We are entitled to promote and defend our identity andreceive the respect that goes with it. We all know that the Canadaof tomorrow will have to be inclusive and celebrate its diversity,that this diversity will have to be obvious in the political arena,and that, like Quebec and Canada’s francophones, we, too, wantto control our own destiny.

How could we not celebrate the Nisga’a Final Agreement asan original avenue in our progress? There is a necessary linkbetween economic responsibility and the development ofpeoples. How can we ignore the huge step forward taken by theNisga’a and how could we possibly not celebrate that step?

Across the country, another agreement is in the works, anagreement that is close to being what we all want. If all goes asplanned, and after a very long journey, the Montagnais Innu fromthe Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Issipit Charlevoix-Tadoussac and

Manicouagan-Betsiamite regions will finally have control overtheir own destiny. Let us salute this progress and theseachievements, because they are fundamental.

Wherever promising negotiations are underway and foretell ofpartnerships and dignity, we must delight and encourage eachother. Likewise, considerable attention must be paid to our morenortherly brothers, the Innu of Labrador and Quebec’s NorthShore.

These Innu have been very patient. Until yesterday, they hadevery reason to be concerned about their future, because for toolong they have been ignored in development projects. Rememberthe NATO plans for low-altitude flights. Did the Governments ofQuebec and Newfoundland not forget them again in their jointplanning of the Churchill River hydroelectric development?

In 1999, did these governments not again assume that thedevelopment of Labrador did not really concern the Innu, evenmisunderstanding the simple map of the ancestral territories ofthe Montagnais Innu?

Agreements are needed to promote responsibilities andsharing, because without them and without responsible nativegovernment, without proper recognition of the space needed andof the partnership in the sharing, the First Nations will behumiliated and systematically ignored, today as yesterday.

This ignorance and these humiliations are a thing of the past ina self-respecting Canada. The new agreements are so manycracks in the dams of silence and disdain. The current will moveand flow with these cracks. We must hope that we may be fullycommitted to this development process.

• (1540)

Yes, we must share the land and the resources. We must sharein order to enrich ourselves and also to make Canada grow. Onlythen will the majority of Canadians stop perceiving theseagreements as concessions, as losses, as follies that threaten theirintegrity.

I ask: Have we invested enough to adequately informCanadians on the true nature of these agreements? The answer isobvious. No, we have not done enough. The debate suffers froma dangerous carelessness. What we are hearing definitely reflectsa painful lack of information.

Some say that we are benefiting from favours, from privilegesand that these agreements are basically meaningless, except forthe money that we get from them. Others think that we aresnatching rights to resources. We look like highway robbers inthe eye of the public, which perceives us as a threat and asleeches. No, we are not investing enough to show the absolutelypositive side of these new agreements. They are not and theymay never be perfect, but we must all work together to improveand multiply them.

[ Senator Gill ]


These agreements represent a real hope for all. This is howthey must be presented to the general public. Again, Icongratulate the Nisga’a Nation for its tenacity and courage, andalso all those who worked so that this agreement could bereached. In spite of the obstacles and difficulties, let us hope thatwe can achieve at the national level what was achieved in thiscase, because tomorrow’s Canada will not be built at the expenseof these peoples and cultures. It will not be built by humiliatingits numerous founding nations. Let us ensure that we can all beproud of being Canadians, while also being proud of who we areand of belonging to this new circle.

[English]

Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor: Honourable senators, I wonder ifthe Honourable Senator Gill would permit a question.

Senator Gill: Yes.

Senator Taylor: Part of a small band — and I cannotremember the exact name of it right now — exists within thetraditional land of the Nisga’a. They were upset about not beingfactored into the equation. I understand that some efforts havebeen made to handle the problem. Is the honourable senatoraware of this band and what is being done to satisfy theirconcerns?

[Translation]

Senator Gill: Honourable senators, I am aware of certainthings, but not of all the details. When an agreement is signed,very clearly there are some problems relating to the overlaps ofterritory between the nations. As far as I know, there has alwaysbeen a possibility of these matters being settled eventually. Ascan be clearly seen, the more signed agreements there are, themore we will have to deal with this type of situation. Until now,certain approaches have been found to get people to discuss theirsituation.

[English]

On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator St. Germain,debate adjourned.

NATIONAL DEFENCE ACTDNA IDENTIFICATION ACT

CRIMINAL CODE

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ADOPTED

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the third report ofthe Standing Senate Committee on Legal and ConstitutionalAffairs (Bill S-10, to amend the National Defence Act, the DNAIdentification Act and the Criminal Code, with amendments)presented in the Senate on December 16, 1999.

Hon. Lorna Milne moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, as Chair of your StandingSenate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I have thehonour of speaking to the report on Bill S-10, to amend theNational Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and theCriminal Code.

The introduction of this promised legislation, Bill S-10, fulfillsthe commitment made by the Solicitor General to the Legal andConstitutional Affairs Committee in December 1998. It is basedon the legislative recommendations made by the committee inour sixteenth report to the Senate on Bill C-3, the DNAIdentification Act of the previous session of Parliament. The billreflects our recommendations by making several changes to theNational Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and theCriminal Code.

Bill S-10 brings within the ambit of the national DNA databank profiles of designated offenders who are subject to themilitary justice system. It also amends the Criminal Code toextend the prohibition against unauthorized use of bodilysubstances and DNA profiles to include those obtained under theNational Defence Act. Bill S-10 expands the “principles” set outin section 4 to make absolutely clear that DNA profiles andbodily substances are to be used “only for law enforcementpurposes in accordance with this Act, and not for anyunauthorized purpose.” This is in response to the committee’sprevious concerns about potential misuse of DNA profiles.

Bill S-10 makes provision for new accountability measuresthat will enable Parliament to monitor the ongoing operation ofthe data bank. It amends the DNA Act to give the Senate and theHouse of Commons committees the same authority to conductthe statutory five-year review of the legislation. In addition, thebill requires the Commissioner of the RCMP to submit an annualreport to the Solicitor General on the operations of the DNA databank, which will be tabled by the Solicitor General in bothHouses of Parliament.

During the committee hearings on Bill S-10, we suggested thatthis report should include a review of current DNA case law. In aletter addressed to the committee through myself on December 7,1999, the Solicitor General accepted our recommendation andagreed to amend the draft regulations accompanying the bill,which, by the way, were also presented to the committee, tospecify that the RCMP Commissioner’s annual report willcontain a review of the DNA case law over the preceding year.

Honourable senators, Bill S-10 is reported back with twoamendments. The amendments were presented to the committeeby the Solicitor General following a meeting of federal,provincial and territorial heads of prosecution. Theseamendments are considered necessary for the purpose ofverifying the identity of a person specified in a DNA data bankorder or authorization. The amendments to the National DefenceAct and to the Criminal Code authorize peace officers or personsacting under their direction to take fingerprints at the same timethat samples of bodily substances are collected for the data bankfrom persons convicted of a designated offence.


Initially, the committee had reservations about the privacyimplications of obtaining fingerprints at the same time assamples of bodily substances are collected for the DNA databank. At the request of the committee, I sent the proposals toMr. Bruce Phillips, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, forstudy. While Mr. Phillips did express some concerns over whatwould happen to the fingerprints once they had been taken, herecognized and appreciated the need to protect the integrity ofthe national DNA data bank. However, he did share thecommittee’s concern about obtaining fingerprints where theCrown has proceeded by way of summary conviction, as in caseswhere there is no authority to take prints under the Identificationof Criminals Act or there are no existing fingerprints on file withwhich to compare. Like the committee, Mr. Phillips was alsoconcerned about the validity of obtaining fingerprints for theseven “specifically military” secondary military offences, whereas well there is currently no authority to take fingerprints forthese offences.

The officials responded to these concerns on December 15,1999, by explaining the process under which the fingerprints forsummary conviction offences would be handled. As thesefingerprints are taken solely for the purpose of DNA sampling,the fingerprints will be treated the same as pardoned records.Only in extreme cases will the information be retained, and thenonly in an in-house data base that assigns a number to theinformation which will be referenced in an in-house query. Theonly instance in which someone could get a name would be ifthey themselves are privileged operators who manage thepardoned criminal records information. Again, the informationwould not be made available to the entire law enforcementcommunity.

Honourable senators, Bill S-10 is a testimony to the diligentand thorough work of your standing committee. I thank theSolicitor General for recognizing our work and our contributionto the legislative process by fulfilling his promise to enact ourrecommendations before the coming into force of Bill C-3, theDNA Identification Act. Bill S-10 is a reflection of our attentionto detail and continued commitment to both the protection ofCanadians’ privacy and their right to public safety.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourablesenators, to adopt the motion?


Motion agreed to and report adopted.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall thisbill be read the third time?

On motion of Senator Milne, bill placed on the Orders of theDay for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.

[Translation]

• (1550)

ROYAL ASSENT BILL

SECOND READING-–DEBATE CONTINUED

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the HonourableSenator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the HonourableSenator Kinsella, for the second reading of Bill S-7,respecting the declaration of Royal Assent by the GovernorGeneral in the Queen’s name to bills passed by the Housesof Parliament.

Hon. Marie-P. Poulin: Honourable senators, I am adding myvoice to the debate in which we are engaged relating to Bill S-7,which deals with Royal Assent as a means of enacting legislationin order to render it enforceable. As honourable senators areaware, this matter has been submitted to the Senate on a numberof occasions.

My interest in this matter arises out of the relevant reflectionsexpressed during this debate and those before it, particularly thejudicious intervention by the Honourable Royce Frith in May1983, and the McGrath commission report two years later.

There have been other attempts from time to time to amend theprocess of Royal Assent. I have familiarized myself with all ofthese in an attempt to gain a clear understanding of the reasonsset forth to justify a change and the possible consequences of thechange proposed in Bill S-7.

I will begin by making it clear that I see Royal Assent as anopportunity to show the results of parliamentary procedure ingeneral, the legislative work of parliamentarians, and that of theSenate in particular.

[English]

Honourable senators, a number of words come to mind, suchas visibility, communications, relevance, accessibility, contentand education. I see here a chance to optimize the work of theSenate, not cloister it with some behind-closed-doors sign-offprocess. Indeed, as several honourable senators are sayingpublicly and privately, we should be looking at ways to make theSenate more visible.

Formal Royal Assent, properly communicated to the public,would serve to inform Canadians not only about theirparliamentary institutions, but also about the laws being passedthat affect them. Royal Assent could, if planned and managed ina communicable fashion, allow parliamentarians to bring out therelevancy and the timeliness of their work as legislators. If thatmeans engaging in ceremony, so be it.

[ Senator Poulin ]


Perhaps one of the tragedies of today is that we do not haveenough ceremonies to remind us of who we are and what we do.Ceremonies, no matter how humble or extravagant, prod us intoreflection. On summer mornings, we can witness crowdsgathering on Parliament Hill to watch the colourful, ceremonialchanging of the guard. Is this merely a tourist spectacle? It ismore. It is a way of presenting to the world a tiny part of Canada.

Honourable senators, in reviewing what has been said in thischamber in regard to Royal Assent, it is clear that no one hasadvocated usurping the legislative process. This is a process thatbinds together both Houses of Parliament and the sovereign, ablending of institutions which has withstood the litmus test ofgovernance.

Honourable senators, the issue before us pits expediencyagainst tradition — changing the rules a little bit so that traditionremains a legitimate exercise but the process is made moreconvenient. I understand this to be the heart of the issue.

Senator Lynch-Staunton, through this bill, has endeavoured toaccomplish a balanced duality by retaining the ceremonial aspectwhile providing for significantly less formal procedure. Whileappreciating his motives — which I remind you, honourablesenators, are shared by all senators on both sides of this chamber— I fear that the proposal in Bill S-7 for written declarationswould become the norm, with the current traditional ceremonyfalling by the wayside. That is to say, we would end up replacinga well-established tradition with an informal office procedure,and we would lose what is perhaps a golden opportunity toinform Canadians about the machinery of the parliamentaryinstitution and its vital legislative role on behalf of Canadians.Only by giving Canadians the opportunity to see — and I say, “tosee” — the relevancy of the upper chamber can we expect peopleto respect the Senate.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, we know that Canada is the onlyCommonwealth country to have retained the ceremony of RoyalAssent in the presence of the Governor General or a judge of theSupreme Court, acting as Deputy Governor General.

Even though we usually turn to a Puisne Judge for RoyalAssent, the fact of requiring that a senior member of themagistrature participate, regardless of his impartiality, entails arisk: one day, this judge will perhaps have to hand down adecision on the validity of a legislative measure to which he willhimself have given Royal Assent.

It would perhaps be advisable for those responsible foranalysing Bill S-7 in depth, in committee, to explore options forconferring this responsibility on other august Canadians who arenot active participants in the judicial process. A list ofdistinguished Canadians qualified to perform duties similar tothose of the Lords Commissioners in England could be drawn up.

Let us remember that during the six years from 1993 to 1998inclusive, there were 46 Royal Assent ceremonies. The GovernorGeneral was present at only five of them. These figures are proof

to some that the official ceremony of Royal Assent is no longerworth the trouble.

In other words, if the representative of the Queen cannot, forone reason or another, play an active and regular role in thelegislative process, why should this duty fall to someone else?Why not adopt an entirely different protocol?

The Governor General’s rate of participation could bejustification for going even further than the proposal in Bill S-7;by that I mean the elimination pure and simple of the practice,along the lines of what was done in Australia.

That is why I can understand the feelings of those who wish tosimplify Royal Assent and create other means of achieving thesame ends, such as those proposed in the bill introduced by ourhonourable colleague.

[English]

• (1600)

I wonder whether, honourable senators, if expediency — orconvenience, if you prefer — were the only consideration, Iwould readily embrace Bill S-7. Logic compels me to weigh theother side of the debate for, as you may be gathering from myremarks about relevance, communication, accessibility, visibility,and education, I am concerned by the steady erosion of ourtraditions and symbols whose disappearance seem more to dowith expediency and political correctness than serving to remindall of us as Canadians of who we are.

In this regard, I view as quite valid the comments of theMonarchist League and a number of honourable colleagues suchas Senator Cools, Senator Grafstein, Senator Nolin and SenatorMilne. In a presentation to the Standing Senate Committee onLegal and Constitutional Affairs the league decried “changingcurrent monarchical symbolism to republican symbolism” andconsigning the role of Queen-in-Parliament “to a secretarial actperformed at a distant functional desk”.

Senator Grafstein and Senator Nolin have, if I interpret theirremarks correctly, touched upon the fact that Royal Assent is amajor constitutional duty of the Governor General, suggesting tous that the Queen’s representatives should be playing a moreactive role in the affairs of Parliament, not less. Indeed, SenatorMilne has referred to Royal Assent as “a fine piece of theatre andmore Canadians should know about it.” Senator Cools astutelyremarked that written declarations ”will further distance andobscure the sovereign’s role and existence in the public businessof our nation.”

Honourable senators, we are, in discussing this bill, in a statewhere the heart and mind compete. The logical mind tells usthere is a more efficient way of doing business, but the heart tugstoward an act of symbolism that reaches back across thecenturies. It is our heritage and one should not dispense with ithastily. It is fine and well to say that because Henry VIII changedthe rules in 1541 by appointing Lords Commissioners to grantassent on behalf of the sovereign, so can we. Henry’s motives


were propelled not by a desire to facilitate the democraticmachinery but to spare himself the indignity of assenting to a billeffectively calculated to dispatch his wife, Catherine, to thechopping block for high treason. For that single action by a king,for personal reasons known but best not repeated in this chamber,the practice of appointing commissioners became so increasinglycommon that today it is normal procedure.

These events demonstrate the principle of the exceptionbecoming the rule. This could ultimately be the case with writtendeclarations, despite provisions to hold once yearly Royal Assentin the presence of the Governor General. Bill S-7 would be thethin edge of the wedge that would, in time, cleave symbolismfrom our parliamentary process.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I should like to make a few morecomments which I feel are relevant to this debate.

In England, it is now common practice to delegate to LordsCommissioners the task of giving assent to acts on behalf of HerMajesty. This usually takes place at Buckingham Palace and is,in my opinion, a ceremonial event.

A distinction must also be made between Canada andAustralia. Whereas Canada has maintained the traditional RoyalAssent ceremony since Confederation, Australia stopped using itin the early years of its history. The two countries have thereforedeveloped different protocols. In spite of having eliminated theRoyal Assent ceremony, Australians voted to remain a monarchy,in a referendum held last November.

Canada is a very young country which welcomes thousands ofimmigrants every year, and their cultures, their rules of law, theirlanguages and even their alphabets may be different.

What is striking is that we assume that those who cross ourborders are invited to take advantage of the abundance that weenjoy here in Canada. By this I mean that we share not only ourstandard of living, but also our parliamentary history, our cultureand our institutions.

For many newcomers, these elements provide the stability thatwas lacking in their country of origin. The question thenbecomes: Are our parliamentary traditions and democracy, andalso the symbolic ceremonies involved, not worth being bettercommunicated to the public?

If so, and I firmly believe this to be the case, should we not useall the modern means available to better inform the public of newlegislation, updates and procedures?

Could we not do everything possible to make our values andour traditions known through our symbols and ceremonies? Is itnot our responsibility as parliamentarians to be more visible, touse available electronic communication to broadcast this finalstage of the legislative process? Yes, broadcasting the ceremonywould force us to rethink it.

[English]

Honourable senators, rather than concealing our customs andtraditions like Royal Assent, we should be showcasing them.Like justice, democracy needs to be seen to be done. Rather thanmaking written declarations the norm and the Royal Assentceremony the exception, I wonder whether the opposite mightnot be a more attractive proposition. In other words, accentuatethe role of the Governor General while limiting writtendeclarations to rare or occasional exceptions. For a time, at least,I suspect that written declarations will be necessary now and thenwhen the two houses are located in different buildings duringrenovations of Centre Block. This I accept as a practicalarrangement. However, I think that we could lean toward a morevisible function for Parliament and for the Governor Generalherself. Is proclaiming laws not one of the primaryresponsibilities of the Governor General? As the sovereign’sproxy, the individual holding that esteemed office should bevisible regularly in the affairs of Parliament in Canada.

A few months ago, a suggestion was circulated that daysdedicated for Royal Assent be fixed when both Houses aresitting; another option for review by the appropriate Senatecommittee.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, during the course of my remarks, I haveargued in favour of greater promotion of the customs andsymbols of our country and called for greater transparency in thelegislative process. I therefore find myself on the side of thosewho think that, to make Parliament more relevant in the eyes ofCanadians, the ceremony of Royal Assent could even, onoccasion, be held in other regions of the country. The RoyalAssent given to the bill that created Nunavut would havejustified holding the ceremony elsewhere than in Ottawa. Thisevent has already occurred, but it would have been interesting tohighlight the creation of a new territory in this way. It wouldhave drawn the attention of Canadians to a historic change in thecountry.

Honourable senators, we owe thanks to SenatorLynch-Staunton. He drew the attention of our house to theparticular conditions of our parliamentary procedure. If ourcollective goal is to ensure rapprochement between the work ofParliament and life in Canada, Bill S-7 gives us an opportunity todo so. Let us take time to look at the way we function. Let usbecome more visible and more accessible. And, if I may repeatmyself, like justice, democracy must be seen to be done.

[English]

• (1610)

Hon. Sharon Carstairs: Honourable senators, I thank SenatorPoulin for her words. One of the great strengths of privatemembers’ bills is that we can have differences of opinion aboutthem — and I certainly have a difference of opinion with SenatorPoulin on this particular issue. I like Senator Lynch-Staunton’sbill. Its passage would be a positive addition to the way we dobusiness in this chamber and in Parliament as a whole. I shouldlike to explain why I say that.

[ Senator Carstairs ]


My very first experience with Royal Assent was not in theSenate of Canada but in the legislature of the Province ofManitoba. I think it is true of most provincial legislatures thatmost of the legislation is not given third reading support untilclose to the end of a particular session. That is because sessionstend to be more compact and because there is usually a newSpeech from the Throne each and every year.

The experience to which I refer was at a time when we werecoming to the end of my first session of the legislature. At thattime, I noticed some interesting things happening in the chamber.For example, I noticed that members on both sides weregathering little bits of paper on their desks. As a former teacher,I have to tell honourable senators that they took on theappearance of potential spitballs.

As we came to the end of the session of the legislature, theLieutenant-Governor had been left waiting outside the chamberfor about five hours. He entered the chamber in order to giveRoyal Assent to the legislation. As he left the chamber, to myabsolute amazement I recognized what the paper was about to beused for. It had been a tradition in the Manitoba legislature thatimmediately following Royal Assent there would be a paper fighton the floor of the legislature.

All of a sudden, paper started to fly on both sides of thechamber. I was given to understand that at one point even copiesof Hansard flew from one side of the chamber to the other. Thatpractice came to an abrupt halt when one of the press galleryrepresentatives was hit in the eye with a piece of Hansard. Thus,it became an unspoken rule that copies of Hansard would nolonger fly following the Royal Assent ceremony.

Several years later, while I was leader of the party, we werefortunate enough to have a sufficient number of members electedto allow us to become the Official Opposition. You mustremember, honourable senators, that I was a school teacher withsome 20 years of experience. I made it clear to my caucusmembers that there would be no paper fights in the Manitobalegislature. I understand that the tradition of throwing paper inthe Manitoba chamber has now come to a halt. Perhaps that wasmy most significant contribution to the decorum of the Manitobalegislature. In any event, that led me to a more serious debate anddiscussion. That is to say, when is a ceremony important andwhen does it do the kinds of things that Senator Poulin spokeabout so eloquently this afternoon? It led me to consider thequestion of when a ceremony has become, perhaps, redundantand unnecessary.

One of the aspects that I like most about SenatorLynch-Staunton’s bill is that he would not get rid of RoyalAssent in its entirety, which of course has happened in the UnitedKingdom, Australia and every other Commonwealth country.The bill before us calls for the ceremony to be performed once ayear. I hope that it would be become a far more significantceremony as a result. We would no longer have the House ofCommons being represented by members of the government sideonly, something that we have had consistently in my five andone-half years in this chamber. We have often had Royal Assent

without the Speaker of the House of Commons. Occasionally,deputy speakers appear.

To me, that does more to harm the democratic process thananything else. If it is held in such disdain by members of theHouse of Commons that they do not think they have to come,then that tells me that it is a ceremony that has, perhaps, gonepast its time in terms of making a significant contribution to thebody politic and, more particularly, to our democratic system.

I have serious concerns about Supreme Court Justicesappearing as Deputy Governors General. Frankly, I do notbelieve they should be here giving Royal Assent to bills. At sometime in the future, they may have to make judgments in cases thatmay involve Acts of Parliament to which they have given RoyalAssent. I think there is a conflict of interest created by being hereto sign off in a Royal Assent ceremony as the Deputy of theGovernor General and then to sit in judgment of that very pieceof legislation.

I agree entirely with Senator Poulin, when she says that weshould be looking at alternatives to those who serve now asDeputy Governors General. If we are to continue with theseceremonies, there are many notable members of the Order ofCanada who could replace the Governor General. There may beothers who would also make good replacements.

I think honourable senators should be aware of a court casebased on this particular issue, which will be heard in Ontarioover the next few months. It concerns whether the situation towhich I refer creates a conflict of interest.

When representatives of the Monarchist League of Canadaappeared before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee,which was considering this bill in another life, I put this questionto John Aimers, who is the head of the league: Should we bemore Catholic than the Pope? In view of the fact that the motherof Parliaments, Westminster, had done away with the ceremonysome 30 years before, I asked if we in Canada should still bedoing it. I asked why other Commonwealth nations had chosen tofollow another route. His answer was that we should be moreCatholic than the Pope, and that it is important for this kind ofsymbolism to remain alive and well in our nation.

I love ceremonies. I think they are good for all of us. Theygive us a sense of our history. They give us a sense of theimportance of our institutions. However, I think ceremonies onlyhave value and purpose if they are ceremonies that everyonetakes to be of great importance and significance.

With the greatest respect to each and every one of us here, I donot think the Royal Assent ceremony takes on that kind ofpurpose and importance when the government whip is forced togo around to ensure that there is a quorum. Technically, aquorum is not needed for Royal Assent, but it is needed for theadjournment. You cannot adjourn until after Royal Assent, soyou must have a quorum. All of us have been asked by our whip,“Will you be here for Royal Assent,” in order to guarantee thatthe numbers will be here.


• (1620)

Honourable senators, if each and every one of us thinks theceremony is so very important, why are we not all here for theRoyal Assent ceremony? My sense is that we do not consider itthe most important part of the process. We consider the thirdreading debate, or the final third reading vote if it is an issueupon which there is disagreement, to be the most important partof the process, not the Royal Assent process.

I should like to see the Royal Assent envisaged in SenatorLynch-Staunton’s bill become a ceremony of grand occasion.The Governor General is here, members of the House ofCommons are present in great numbers, and the number ofsenators present in this chamber is high. That is the direction inwhich we should be going. I think we should be moving into anew era.

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I had notintended to participate in the debate but the eloquence of bothSenator Poulin and former deputy leader Senator Carstairssuggests to me that, perhaps, we collectively have forgotten theessence of Royal Assent.

The essence of Royal Assent is not the ceremony. Theceremony marks a special occasion, but the essence of RoyalAssent is based on the well-known principle that ignorance of thelaw is no defence, so that when laws are passed, a commoncitizen cannot say, “I did not know about that law.” As a questionof law, each citizen in Canada is required to know every law.Lack of that knowledge is not, in any way, shape or form, adefence if that law is breached by an individual citizen, either byneglect or by omission. The essence of the law was that whenParliament had concluded its deliberations, the monarch wouldassent to the law in order to bring to the citizens’ attention that alaw had been passed and that knowledge should not be denied. Iunderstand the arguments made by Senator Poulin and others, butthat principle is the essence of Royal Assent.

By obsolescence and by practice, we have relegated thisceremony to a place and a time that is inconvenient, namely,Thursday evening, when it is not convenient for senators whotravel to the West or to the East to attend. We have trashed thatprinciple and now some are arguing against the trashing of theprinciple. In effect, we have said that because it is obsolete,because people do not attend and because the other place is nothere, it is a moot principle. However, the principle remains thatignorance of the law is no defence. Hence, when we pour outthousands of pages of law without the public knowing that wehave passed that law, it strikes me as being an abrogation of ourresponsibilities as parliamentarians. Why are we here to debatethese matters if not to educate the public about the changes in thelaw?

Once we have concluded the debate, to relegate it to theCanada Gazette, which no one reads, is to dismiss the hard workof both Houses. With Royal Assent, Her Majesty comes toParliament and accepts the law, from the Commons and from theLords, in order to demonstrate to the citizens that there is a new

and different law by which they are to be bound. Although wehave failed in the ceremony and in the practice, that should notpermit us to make the practice even worse.

There are many good ways of educating the public in the lawsthat we pass. The Royal Assent ceremony is one greatopportunity to do so. I am in favour of renovating the practice,not of relegating it to the dustbin of history.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I have a questionwhich I should like to put to the Honourable Senator Carstairs.My question relates to her narration regarding John Aimers’remarks about being more Catholic than the Pope.

An Hon. Senator: Order!

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, I wanted to ask aquestion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs and I was quietlywaiting my turn, as I always do.

Senator Nolin: You must ask for permission first.

Hon. Fernand Robichaud (The Hon. the Acting Speaker):Honourable Senator Cools, do you wish to ask for the consent ofthe Senate to pose a question to the second last speaker?

Senator Cools: Yes, honourable senators. I seek clarificationon a statement that Senator Carstairs made, which I feel isextremely relevant to the debate.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is it agreed, honourablesenators?


The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Please proceed, SenatorCools.

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, Senator Carstairs hasraised an extremely important question. I commend thehonourable senator for ending what I thought was unnecessaryand unparliamentary behaviour in the Manitoba legislature.However, they are a legislature, not Parliament, so perhaps theycould be overlooked at that stage.

The proper solution here is to —

Senator Lynch-Staunton: You are supposed to ask a question,not make a speech. You will not get leave again if you do that.

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, I am coming to myquestion. Perhaps the honourable senator is in a hurry today.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Just ask the question.

Senator Cools: I do have leave, senator, and I am not in thehabit of taking direction from you.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Take direction from the Senate,then.


Senator Cools: Honourable senators, Senator Carstairs hassuggested that, perhaps, either the Senate of Canada or somesenators are attempting to be a bit more Catholic than the Pope. Iunderstand her concern and where she is coming from. However,I should like the honourable senator to clarify before us whetheror not the situation she has described — that is, the situation inEngland — is not unlike the situation in Canada. In point of fact,in England the Queen’s major representative, the LordChancellor —

Some Hon. Senators: Question!

Senator Cools: — sits in the House of Lords. Consequently,the situation is not quite analogous, because the Lord Chancellor,as Senator Carstairs would know, is the Queen’s majorrepresentative, so named because he has sufficient power tocancel the Queen’s commissions and the Queen’s patents. I amasking whether or not she considers her analogy a fair one.

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, let me be clear. Theanalogy had nothing to do with the situation that was occurringin the United Kingdom with respect to the Chancellor or theExchequer or the Lord High Chancellor. It is concerned withwhether a ceremony we have in Canada — and one which theyno longer have in Great Britain — is necessary.

• (1630)

In other words, the question is whether Royal Assent isperhaps an unnecessary symbolic act in Canada, when, for themost part — but not entirely, because we are, after all, a federalsystem and they are not — our traditions come from the motherParliament, Westminster, and the mother Parliament has decidedthat that ceremony is no longer necessary in the way weconduct it.

If I may use a phrase that is quite common, my question is: Dowe have to be more Catholic than the Pope? Do we have to bemore monarchist, do we have to be more traditional, do we haveto be more orchestrated towards formal ceremonies than they arein the United Kingdom? Mr. Aimers’ response to that appears tobe: Yes.

On motion of Senator Corbin, debate adjourned.

CRIMINAL CODE

BILL TO AMEND—SECOND READING—DEBATE ADJOURNED

Hon. Anne C. Cools moved the second reading of Bill S-9, toamend the Criminal Code (abuse of process).

She said: Honourable senators, essentially, this bill attempts toaddress the issue of the use of false allegations of child sexualabuse, largely within custodial disputes and within judicialproceedings. It had been my intention, honourable senators, to

speak more fully today, but in view of the lateness of the hour Ishall just move the adjournment and proceed on another day.

On motion of Senator Cools, debate adjourned.

CRIMINAL CODECORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT

BILL TO AMEND—SECOND READING—DEBATE CONTINUED

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the HonourableSenator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Watt,for the second reading of Bill C-247, to amend the CriminalCode and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act(cumulative sentences).—(Honourable Senator Di Nino).

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, Bill C-247 wouldamend the Criminal Code with respect to cumulative sentencing.This bill has been reincarnated several times since 1996 by amember of the other place, seemingly against cabinet’s wishes.That member persisted with the bill and, with the support of theother parties, was finally able to persuade the government of itsmerit, and the bill received third reading in the other place onJune 7, 1999.

I think it is appropriate to quote from the debate on the bill inthe other place before I continue with my short discussion. Theoriginator of the bill said, in a previous Parliament:

Since I reintroduced this bill I have sadly been visited bytoo many victims of crime who have now come to realizethat they are also victims of parliament. Some had lostchildren, some had lost parents, some had lost spouses, butall had lost faith in the courts, lost faith in parole boardsand, most of all, lost faith in parliament.

This bill is about a principle that we accept in our commonlaw, that crimes against persons and against property should bepunished, and that the victims of crime have a right to justice.This bill repairs and restores proper justice by allowing thesentence to reflect the crime.

Too often the punishment of a crime bears little resemblance tothe nature of the crime itself. This bill would enforce the severityof penalties with respect to the crime, reinforce the good work ofour law enforcement and legal systems, and show truecompassion to the victims and their families.

Bill C-247 would require those convicted of sexual assaults,and any other offence arising out of the same events, to servetheir sentences consecutively, therefore reflecting the heinousnature of their crimes. It would require those convicted of seconddegree murder to serve the mandatory parts of each sentenceconsecutively. This bill only impacts two groups in our society:multiple murderers and multiple rapists.


Under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every Canadianhas a right not to be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment; sothe courts generally impose sentences that meet certainsentencing objectives, such as crime prevention, rehabilitation,imposition of a reasonable sentence, and the protection ofsociety. Often, concurrent sentences are imposed so that aproportionate amount of each sentence is actually served. Whenseveral offences are committed in the course of a single incident,the courts will use concurrent sentencing. If offences arecommitted through a series of different incidents, consecutivesentencing is imposed. Under the Criminal Code today, there isno differentiation to account for the number of victims or thenumber of crimes in relation to parole ineligibility. If this bill ispassed, it will give judges the discretion to extend the term ofparole ineligibility for multiple murderers. Depending on thenature of the crimes committed, that judicial discretion wouldallow a judge to choose to add no time for the second crime, or toadd one day or up to 25 additional years.

This bill is also realistic, as it prevents courts from imposingsentences beyond the natural lives of offenders. In effect, we areguaranteeing that the second, third, or eleventh victim will seejustice served.

In most criminal cases, this type of provision would have littleimpact, but in rape and murder, the law slips into a haze thatleaves many victims and families of victims perplexed and oftendisgusted, and, like many other Canadians, cynical anddistrusting of our justice system. My sadness and frustration withthese types of crimes is only matched by my exasperation withour justice system, when it allows someone like Clifford Olson toreceive public attention and a forum to argue for his release afterserving only 15 years.

It was interesting that, after 15 years, Clifford Olson was ableto get a member of the staff at the penitentiary to actually talkabout what a good guy he really was and to say how he did notfear for his safety. He testified on behalf of Clifford Olson. Thisgentleman need not have been afraid; he was not a little girl or alittle boy.

This bill gives us an opportunity to restore some dignity to thesystem. Canadians of every political stripe, from every regionacross Canada, hold the same view on this issue. Over90 per cent of Canadians would support differentiating paroleineligibility for multiple murders or multiple sexual assaults.That percentage would be even higher if the courts were alloweddiscretion in using this provision.

• (1640)

Honourable senators, we have an opportunity to restore somefaith in our justice system and to promise families of victims ofthe most horrendous crimes that justice will be served.

On motion of Senator Di Nino, debate adjourned.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN CHINA IN RELATION TOUNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS

INQUIRY—DEBATE CONTINUED

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the HonourableSenator Wilson calling the attention of the Senate toreligious freedom in China, in relation to the UNinternational covenants.—(Honourable Senator Poy).

Hon. Vivienne Poy: Honourable senators, before I begin, Ishould like to wish every one of you a very happy and healthyNew Year in this year of the dragon.

I should like to speak to the inquiry into religious freedom inChina that was initiated by Senator Wilson and on which SenatorAustin and Senator Di Nino also spoke.

As the first person of Chinese heritage to sit in this chamber, Ihope to bring a unique perspective to bear on this issue,particularly on China’s cultural and historic attributes and howthey shape its approach to human rights. When speaking ofsomething as complex and emotionally charged as human rights,it is easy to allow our passions and rhetoric to overwhelmopen-mindedness and logical argument.

In this chamber, it is important that we seek education overconfrontation. If we do not, we risk losing sight of our commonobjective in this inquiry — namely, the greater respect for life,liberty and dignity of the human person in China, Canada andelsewhere.

This is a timely inquiry, as China has recently signed theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well asthe International Covenant on Economic, Social and CulturalRights. We look forward to China’s ratification of theseimportant documents. Moreover, the United States will beintroducing a resolution on China’s human rights practices at theUnited Nations Commission on Human Rights when it meetsnext month in Geneva.

Approximately one month ago, we marked the beginning of anew year and a new millennium. The passing of such a milestoneoffers an opportunity to reflect on past events, accomplishmentsand failures. I suspect that historians will view the past 100 yearsas a period of profound paradox. The 20th century was thebloodiest in human history, with millions of people suffering andlosing their lives through war, regional conflicts and genocide.We saw the depths to which humanity can sink through theactions of various totalitarian regimes and by those statesclaiming to have a greater level of respect for human life. The20th century also witnessed the dismantling of colonial empires,the establishment of the United Nations as a means for resolvinginterstate conflict, and the adoption of international human rightsagreements.

[ Senator Poy ]


Today, the result is that nations do not have the luxury to judgethemselves. A state’s actions are increasingly assessed by thecourt of international public opinion. The notion of human rightshas become so firmly established that last year NATO enteredinto a war in the Balkans for what we were told was a response tothe human rights abuses in Kosovo. This conflict, as well asthose in East Timor and Chechnya, exceed the scope of thisinquiry, but, ultimately, they call our attention to the central issueregarding the right of sovereign states to dictate on matters ofinternal policy to other sovereign states. How effective is it?

Any discussion of human rights, regardless of the country orculture we talk about, draws our attention to the relationshipbetween the state and its citizens. The examination of thisrelationship begs us to answer the following questions: Whatrights do we hold by virtue of our humanity? Is the concept ofhuman rights, as defined by the West, universally applicable?What is the proper balance between the rights of the individualand the rights of the community? These are questions thatchallenged us in the 20th century and ones that will confront useven more in the future.

The approach of the West to human rights often ignores thedarker periods of its own history. The actions of Nazi Germanyand segregation in the United States reveal that the Westcertainly has not supported individual human rights uniformlysince the concept was first devised during the Enlightenment.

Even in Canada, the treatment of the First Nations, the historictreatment of non-white immigrants and the internment ofJapanese Canadians during World War II reveals that the strugglefor human rights is never complete, even though successiveCanadian governments have sought to correct these mistakes.

Human rights, as defined by the United Nations UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, is a recent concept. Up to the17th century, Western societies placed as much emphasis onduties as on the rights of citizens. Since the concept of humanrights varies between cultures, the West has been accused ofimposing an interpretation on cultures that do not share itshistoric and cultural background.

This argument is reflected in the works of Indian philosopherR. Pannikar, who wrote that:

Human rights are one window through which one particularculture envisages a just human order for its individuals.

Certainly, this sentiment is reflected in the approach to humanrights taken by the Chinese government. Beijing has argued thatthe interpretation and implementation of international humanrights standards varies with cultural and historical facts and thelevel of economic development. China approaches Westerndefinitions of civil and political rights with extreme caution.

While we must be sensitive to cultural differences, for they doexist, such differences should not be used to rationalizesystematic human rights abuse. In spite of all their differences,cultures share, and always will, the common denominator ofhumanity.

To understand the actions of the Chinese government, we mustacknowledge the more collectivist nature of Chinese society andthe impact that religion has played in its history. Not doing socan lead to charges of cultural imperialism. I found the remarksof Senator Wilson and Senator Austin on this aspect of theinquiry particularly interesting. Senator Wilson’s detailedexplanation of China’s approach to religion was particularlyenlightening, as was her observation that the Western press oftenreport religion-related arrests without any explanation beyond thefact that “Chinese law was broken.”

• (1650)

In traditional China, importance was placed on humanity, alsoknown as Confucian humanism. Mencius taught that people aremore important than rulers and therefore had the right tooverthrow tyrants. Centuries before European civilizationsabandoned the concept of the divine right of kings, the conceptof “people’s rights” existed in China.

The concepts of human equality and popular sovereigntyexisted very early in Chinese thought, but they did not lead to apolitical structure that protected human rights. That is becausepower in modern China became increasingly concentrated in thehands of a few. Until the 1911 revolution, at least, the imperialcensorate was in the position to criticize the emperor’s exerciseof power.

Within the past few centuries, a number of political rebellionsin China have had religious or mystic overtones, and many ofthese contributed to the fall of major dynasties. I am sure theleaders know their history well.

To emphasize the role played by religion in China’s politicalhistory, I will say a few words about the Taiping Rebellion,which started in 1850. The God-Worshipping Society proclaimedthe Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace in Nanjing in 1851. Theleader, Hung Hsiu Ch’üan, claimed to be the younger brother ofJesus. The movement swept across the entire south China.Religious indoctrination was used to control the population in theconquered territories. It took 14 years for the imperialgovernment to crush the rebellion, and it cost the lives of30 million people, which was approximately 10 per cent of thepopulation of China at that time. That is the entire population ofCanada today.

I, for one, can understand why the Chinese government wishesto avoid this kind of upheaval from a large segment of itspopulation, particularly when it is working with great speed tobring about the economic reforms believed to be necessary forChina to catch up with the industrialized countries.

John Stuart Mill’s concept of “the greatest good for thegreatest number” has been an accepted philosophy in China for along time.

In the 20th century, Wu Ching-Hsiung, chief architect of theChinese nationalist government’s first and most liberalconstitutional draft, wrote in the 1920s:


Westerners, in struggling for freedom, started with theindividual. Now we, in struggling for freedom, start fromthe group... We wish to save the nation and the race, and sowe cannot but demand that each individual sacrifice his ownfreedom in order to preserve the freedom of the group.

Chang Fo-ch’üan, a graduate of John Hopkins University anda professor at Beijing University during the 1920s, believed thatthere could be no areas of an individual’s existence that areinviolate. “Freedom”, he said, “is public, not private,” andconcerns the needs of society as fully as that of the individual.Sun Yat-sun, in his later years, maintained that “what Chinarequired was not the liberty of the individual, but the freedom ofthe state.” These are the philosophies of some of the mostimportant intellectuals in China in the first half of the20th century.

In the revised Preliminary Draft of the Chinese Constitution ofthe 1920s under the Nationalist government, the article onreligious freedom reads:

Every citizen shall have the freedom of religious belief;such freedom shall not be limited except in accordance withthe law.

Not much has changed since then. The Chinese governmenttoday argues that individuals should be sacrificed wherenecessary for the collectivity and that those in power shoulddecide what is good for that collectivity.

As long as any country is ruled by a one-party system, as inChina where the Communist Party is enshrined in theconstitution as the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” the concept ofhuman rights remains subject to the party’s interpretation.“Human rights” in the Chinese language means “human power,”and the struggle for human rights is understood by thegovernment as a fight for political power and therefore as a threatto the establishment.

Since religious freedom falls within the confines of humanrights, which is “human power,” they are viewed as one and thesame. In comparison to the draft constitution of 1920, Article 36of China’s 1982 constitution guarantees religious freedom. Asecond clause limits this guarantee, however, to “normalreligious activities.” “Normal” is left undefined, and the use ofreligion to disrupt public order is prohibited.

The control of any Chinese congregation by a foreign religiousorganization is not permitted. Historically, Western imperialistsused religion as the pretext to dominate and obtain concessionsfrom China. This in no way means that that was the intention ofthe missionaries who went to China. Most of them were simplyused by their governments for political ends. Since the19th century, many lawless Chinese converted to Christianity justso that they could enjoy the protection of the Western churches,and thus the Western governments, from Chinese law. Anobvious example was the use of missionaries by the Germangovernment to obtain concessions in Shandong Province.Kaiser Wilhelm II was known to have said that he would havelarger territorial rights in China if only he had more missionaries.

The present Chinese government recognizes and authorizesfive religious movements: Buddhism, Catholicism,Protestantism, Taoism and Islam. Each of these five sanctionedreligions is supervised by a “patriotic association” which reportsto the government’s Religious Affairs Bureau. Although itflourishes, unregistered religious activity is illegal and remains apunishable offence.

Such an approach to religion appears alien to us as Canadiansuntil we understand China’s unique historical and culturalexperiences in this area.

This issue illustrates one of the main points of contention inthe discussion of human rights in China — specifically,differences arising from Western versus Chinese understandingof human rights.

Linked to the “Asian” versus “Western” values discussion isthe argument over whether human rights should take precedenceover economic and social development. Collective rights such asthe “right to development” have been suggested as being moreimportant and more in keeping with the Chinese values than theWest’s apparent preoccupation with civil and political rights.Indeed, the Chinese government’s attitude toward human rightsis based on the proposition that subsistence rights are paramountand that civil and political rights are secondary.

The late Julius K. Nyerere, founder of modern-day Tanzania,perhaps expressed this idea best. He said:

What freedom has our subsistence farmer? He scratches abare living from the soil provided the rains do not fail; hischildren work at his side without schooling, medical care, oreven good feeding. Certainly he has freedom to vote and tospeak as he wishes. But these freedoms are much less real tohim than his freedom to be exploited. Only as his poverty isreduced will his existing political freedom become properlymeaningful and his right to human dignity become a fact ofhuman dignity.

President Li Tieying of the Chinese Academy of SocialSciences said the same thing to me when he visited Canada inOctober 1988. He said:

What’s the use of having rights and freedoms when youdon’t have the right to adequate food and shelter?

To be sure, the idea of the greatest good for the greatestnumber of people appears at first to be an impelling argument fordelaying the implementation of individual rights such asreligious freedom. Countries have routinely explained awayhuman rights violations through the need for nationaldevelopment.

Authoritarian governments, however, simply have notrealistically demonstrated that free thought, speech, theestablishment of mass organizations and the criticism of leadersis incompatible with the rights of subsistence and development.Statistical studies do not support the claim that there is a generalconflict between civil and political rights and economicperformance.

[ Senator Poy ]


• (1700)

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Poy, yourspeaking time has expired. Are you asking for permission tocontinue?

Senator Poy: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it agreed, honourablesenators?


The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Please go on.

Senator Poy: Honourable senators, the 1993 ViennaDeclaration on Human Rights states that:

...while development facilitates the enjoyment of humanrights, the lack of development may not be invoked tojustify the abridgement of internationally recognized humanrights.

Indeed, it is increasingly apparent that sustainabledevelopment actually requires a commitment to civil andpolitical rights. By helping to ensure government accountabilityand transparency, civil and political rights can help channeleconomic growth into national development.

Arising from the developmental approach to human rights isthe argument that individual civil and political rights must take asecondary position to the maintenance of order and stability,particularly in a country that is as vast in size and population asChina. We do acknowledge that Chinese society differs markedlyfrom Canada’s. We are aware that China’s immense populationmeans that its society confronts many of the issues regardingfreedom of speech, religion and assembly that we as Canadiansreally only deal with in the abstract. However, there can be nolong-term peaceful coexistence among different religious andcultural groups and territories within a country without theestablishment of a basis for respect of rights to human dignity.Compelled silence only offers the illusion of order.

Why is the Chinese government so concerned about civilunrest in recent years? The suppression of personal freedom hasalways existed but has seldom been reported by the Westernpress. With the opening up of China’s trade with the West, andbecause of the Internet, the rest of the world is much more awareof what goes on in that country.

Deng Xiao-Ping’s economic reforms have brought prosperityto China, but the wealth is concentrated in the hands of very few.Tens of millions of peasants have been driven off the landbecause of industrialization and development, and they areroaming the country looking for work. Unprofitable stateindustries are being dismantled and urban workers have not onlylost their jobs but have also lost their social safety net. Thefeeling of loss and insecurity in the population is channelledtowards the hope provided by religion, mysticism, and even

traditional exercises that are believed to heal the body,particularly when a large segment of the population has lost thegovernment medical care that went with their jobs.

The Internet remains the greatest threat to the Chinesegovernment. The educated in the country can be mobilizedinstantly, as we saw on television last summer regarding theFalun Dafa movement. I believe, however, that mass arrest willonly increase instability in the country.

The Chinese people need a safety valve to release theirpent-up frustration caused by economic dislocation, and the onlyway is to democratize the system of government by giving thepeople more control over their own lives. Curbing freedom doesnot ensure stability in any country in the long run.

Honourable senators, before I conclude, a response is requiredto Senator Di Nino’s suggestion that the reason the recentChinese migrants have come to Canada on leaky boats is thatthere have been human rights violations in China. I refer to aninterview with an illegal — and I repeat, illegal — Chinesemigrant in the United States. When he was asked whether he hadmore freedom in the United States or in China, he immediatelyanswered “China”. He was then asked why he had suffered suchhardship to go to the United States and the answer was: “Foreconomic security.”

As Senator Austin remarked, China is attempting to makeprogress in the field of human rights, thanks in part to theopening up of the country to technological changes and the flowof information and ideas. Considerable effort has been made bythe Chinese government to establish the rule of law and a courtsystem based on the same principles as those found in the West.As Canadians, we should welcome such developments. Canada isworking with the Chinese government on human rights. The twocountries are participating in a constructive dialogue on theseissues and Canada is assisting China in reforming its legal andjudicial structures.

Having said all that, I still believe that, ultimately, theimprovement of China’s human rights record will come fromwithin, through the actions of the younger generation. Only somuch can be accomplished on a government-to-governmentbasis, particularly when one of those governments isauthoritarian.

In this age of globalization, the deluge of information madepossible by the Internet is the greatest equalizer of all. No longercan countries build walls to keep their citizens in. Chinese youthsincreasingly have the ability to access or disseminate informationanywhere in the world. With better economic and educationalopportunities for the young, the future leaders of China wantwhat the rest of the world wants — economic security andindividual freedom.

Honourable senators, in order for the Western democracies tohave influence on human rights in China, there must becontinuous dialogue. Friendship and trade are the two mostuseful tools of influence.


There is an old Chinese proverb that says: “There are manypaths to the top of the mountain, but the view is always thesame.” I believe China is on its way up the mountain. It willreach the top, like Canada and the other industrialized countries,but along a different path.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition):Honourable senators, I wonder whether Senator Poy would take afew questions on what she has had to say these past fewmoments?

Senator Poy: Yes, if I can answer them.

Senator Kinsella: I think it may be rather difficult, if I haveunderstood correctly what you have had to say. First, is it yourposition that human rights are culturally relative?

Senator Poy: The understanding of human rights is, becauseeveryone has a different way of understanding. What I wassaying is that the Chinese understanding of human rights isdifferent. What we understand is really a Western import. Notthat it is not right — it is right, but everyone must learn the samesystem. However, because the country is so different, theirapproach must be different.

I am stating a fact. I am not stating that what they are doing iscorrect. I am attempting to explain what is happening, from myown understanding.

Senator Kinsella: I wonder whether it is the honourablesenator’s position that there is no unity to human rights; thateconomic, social and cultural rights are somehow in an economicrelationship with civil and political rights? Is it the honourablesenator’s position that there is no unity to human rights?

Senator Poy: I think there should be, but right now in Chinathere is not; that is what I am saying. Hopefully, very soon therewill be.

Senator Kinsella: Could the honourable senator let us knowwhether it is her view that there is a difference between ajustification of a given human right and the internationalrecognition of a given human right? For example, freedom ofconscience and freedom of religion are recognized ininternational treaty law, and she has alluded to the fact that Chinahas submitted the instruments of ratification of the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights. Is it the honourablesenator’s view that the international law that recognizes the rightto freedom of religion is one thing and the philosophicaljustification is quite another thing?

• (1710)

Senator Poy: I do not believe that, honourable senators. I amtrying to explain what is happening. Historically, this is whathappened in China. It takes time for leaders to learn to deal withthings differently. When China reaches a similar standard to aWestern country in terms of economics, there will be moreopportunity for people to express themselves and to learn.Currently, it is as if we are comparing apples to oranges.

Senator Kinsella: Is the honourable senator saying that thehuman right of freedom of religion is being respected by theGovernment of China? The honourable senator has advised usthat the Chinese government has an office of religion whichapproves of five religions. Does the right of freedom of religionembrace Judaism in China?

Senator Poy: According to my information, there are onlyfive. I cannot say anything more than that. If Senator Wilsonwere here, she would be able to answer the question better than Iam able to answer it.

On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator Andreychuk,debate adjourned.

DISTINGUISHED CANADIANS AND THEIRINVOLVEMENTWITH THE UNITED KINGDOM

INQUIRY—DEBATE CONTINUED

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the HonourableSenator Cools calling the attention of the Senate:

(a) to persons of Canadian birth who sat as members ofthe House of Commons of the United Kingdom,including Ontario-born Edward Blake, Liberal Ministerof Justice of Canada 1875-1877 also Leader of theLiberal Party of Canada 1880-1887, andNew-Brunswick born the Right Honourable BonarLaw, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom1922-1923, and Ontario-born Sir Bryant Irvine DeputySpeaker of the House of Commons of the UnitedKingdom 1976-1982;

(b) to persons of Canadian birth who sat as members ofthe House of Lords of the United Kingdom, includingthe Right Honourable Richard B. Bennett, PrimeMinster of Canada 1930-1935, and Lord Beaverbrook,Cabinet Minister in the United Kingdom in 1918 and1940-1942;

(c) to persons of British birth born in the UnitedKingdom or the Dominions and Colonies who haveserved in the Senate and the House of Commons ofCanada including the Right Honourable John Turner,Prime Minister of Canada 1984 also Liberal Leader ofthe Opposition l984-1990 and myself, a sitting blackfemale Senator born in the British West Indies;

(d) to persons of Canadian citizenship who weremembers of the Privy Council of the United Kingdomincluding the Prime Ministers of Canada, the SupremeCourt of Canada Chief Justices, and some CabinetMinisters of Canada including the Leader of theGovernment in the Senate 1921-1930 and 1935-1942the Right Honourable Senator Raoul Dandurandappointed to the United Kingdom Privy Council in1941;


(e) to the 1919 Nickle Resolution, a motion of only theHouse of Commons of Canada for an address toHis Majesty King George V and to Prime MinisterRichard B. Bennett’s 1934 words in the House ofCommons characterizing this Resolution, that:

“That was as ineffective in law as it is possible forany group of words to be. It was not only ineffective,but I am sorry to say, it was an affront to thesovereign himself. Every constitutional lawyer, oranyone who has taken the trouble to study this matterrealizes that that is what was done.”;

(f) to the words of Prime Minister R.B. Bennett in a1934 letter to J.R. MacNicol, MP that:

“So long as I remain a citizen of the BritishEmpire and a loyal subject of the King, I do notpropose to do otherwise than assume the prerogativerights of the Sovereign to recognize the services ofhis subjects.” ;

(g) to the many distinguished Canadians who havereceived honours since 1919 from the King or Queenof Canada including the knighting in 1934 ofSir Lyman Duff, Supreme Court of Canada ChiefJustice, and in 1935 of Sir Ernest MacMillan, musician,and in 1986 of Sir Bryant Irvine, parliamentarian, andin 1994 of Sir Neil Shaw, industrialist, and in 1994 ofSir Conrad Swan, advisor to Prime Minister LesterPearson on the National Flag of Canada;

(h) to the many distinguished Canadians who havereceived 646 orders and distinctions from foreignnon-British, non-Canadian sovereigns between 1919and February 1929;

(i) to the legal and constitutional position of persons ofCanadian birth and citizenship, in respect of theirability and disability for their membership in theUnited Kingdom House of Lords and House ofCommons, particularly Canadians domiciled in theUnited Kingdom holding dual citizenship of Canadaand of the United Kingdom;

(j) to the legal and constitutional position of Canadiansat home and abroad in respect of entitlement to receivehonours and distinctions from their own Sovereign,Queen Elizabeth II of Canada, and to the position inrespect of their entitlement to receive honours anddistinctions from sovereigns other than their own,including from the sovereign of France the honour, theOrdre Royale de la Légion d’Honneur;

(k) to those honours, distinctions, and awards that arenot hereditary in character such as life peerages,knighthoods, military and chivalrous orders; and

(l) to the recommendation by the United KingdomPrime Minister Tony Blair to Her MajestyQueen Elizabeth II for the appointment to the House ofLords as a non-hereditary peer and lord of Mr. ConradBlack a distinguished Canadian, publisher,entrepreneur and also the Honorary Colonel of theGovernor General’s Foot Guards ofCanada.—(Honourable Senator LeBreton).

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, I rise today toparticipate in the debate on Senator Cools’ inquiry regardingdistinguished Canadians and their involvement in the UnitedKingdom. Over the years, a number of Canadians have receivedwell-deserved honours from the United Kingdom despite theexistence of the 1919 Nickle Resolution. Some examples weregiven by Senator Cools in her presentation.

There are more recent examples about which honourablesenators should be aware. Eleni Bakopanos, a member of theother place, recently received an honour from Portugal. Myfriend, the late Peter Bosa, among others, received an honourfrom Spain not too many years ago.

Conrad Black is a respected Canadian with a successful careerin international business. The Queen and the Government of theUnited Kingdom decided to grant him an honour in recognitionof the services he has rendered to that country. Why, then, is thisgovernment putting roadblocks in the path of his receiving thishonour? The fact is that the Prime Minister is unhappy with theNational Post and its coverage of his government’s politicalmisdeeds. Thus, it seems to me that the Prime Minister hasdecided to use the power of his office to obstruct Mr. Black’sappointment to the House of Lords. Surely, this is one of themore egregious examples of Mr. Chrétien’s love for pettypartisan politics.

I applaud Senator Cools for raising this important issue, and Ilook forward to a frank exchange of views with all honourablesenators.

Hon. Marcel Prud’homme: Honourable senators, I shouldlike to ask a question of the Honourable Senator Di Nino, if hewould allow me to do so.

Senator Di Nino: Of course, honourable senators.

Senator Prud’homme: Honourable senators, Canada is acountry that has evolved greatly. I remember participating in avigorous debate in the House of Commons with the RightHonourable John Diefenbaker, who was a very good friend ofmine. He was a great orator. The matter of debate concernedchanging gradually the terms of Canadian citizenship. At thattime, there were some members of the Parliament of Canada whohappened not to be Canadian citizens. Some people thought thatthis should be allowed to continue. However, I thought it shouldbe abolished right away.


We made a deal with Elections Canada concerning Britishcitizens. However, there were other classes of citizens. People ofGreek origin and Italian origin were considered to be in oneclass. Those of British origin were considered to be in anotherclass with special privileges. Then there were those who wereCanadian born and those who were naturalized. Gradually, wechanged so that everyone was on an equal footing. We said thatno longer would there be second- or third-class Canadians.

My first passport stated that as a Canadian I was a Britishsubject. I had another passport which stated that as a Canadiancitizen I was a member of the Commonwealth. My present-daypassport states that its bearer is a Canadian citizen.

Senator Di Nino: Honourable senators, I, too, was aware ofthe differences to which the honourable senator made reference.I was one of those who was less Canadian than others. I did notlike it then and I do not like it now. However, that has nothing todo with the issue at hand. The issue at hand concerns anestablished tradition. Many countries recognize the contributionsmade by Canadians to the service of those countries. That is theissue we are discussing today.

I was offended much more than Senator Prud’homme. He, atleast, was called a Canadian. I was not allowed to vote. However,my neighbour, who had just arrived from England, was allowedto vote. I believe that was a dark chapter in the history of thiscountry which, in my opinion, is a different issue from the onewe are talking about now.

Today, we are talking about whether the Prime Minister,because of personal reasons, blocked this man from anappointment to the House of Lords. Whether Conrad Blackshould receive such an appointment is not up to me. As Iunderstand it, the Government of the United Kingdom, as well asthe Queen, had agreed to bestow this honour on Mr. Black. Yet, aparticular piece of legislation that has not been used for a longtime was used to block the appointment. That is the question Iam raising. I do not believe it is correct.

• (1720)

Senator Prud’homme: Honourable senators, I have asupplementary question. Now that we will look into the newImmigration and Citizenship Act, does the honourable senatorhave any comments on it at this time? I am not totally againstwhat Senator Cools is trying to do. It is a question of receivinghonour. Some honours you can receive; others you cannot. I donot understand that. Some members here were candidates forhonours in foreign countries, but they were turned down becausetheir candidacy was not agreed upon. You need permission toreceive an honour from another country.

Does he believe we are on our way towards saying that no oneshould have dual citizenship in Canada? That sounds like theultimate goal here. I never knew that Senator Di Nino was one ofthe people whom I have been talking about. I regret the past, butI am not someone who stays on his knees, regretting all the

mistakes that were made in the past. I want to progress and makea better future by learning from past mistakes. Does thehonourable senator think we should slowly move towards that?

Senator Di Nino: First, I agree that it is something of the past.We should learn from the past and not necessarily revisit it, otherthan to learn from it.

I have a different point of view from yours on this issue.Again, I am not sure that it is related. If I am out of order, I willsit down. I think that borders or frontiers are an unnatural thingthat were created by man — mainly the male species, I may add— to keep people out. The experiment that is happening inEurope, where they are trying to knock down those frontiers andborders and to engage humans more as citizens of the world, isthe way to go. I am not particularly interested in building morebarriers or more frontiers. Having said that, I recognize that it isnot necessarily a widely accepted position and that it is certainlynot something that can be done quickly in the near future. Toanswer your question directly, having two or three passports orcitizenships would not bother me at all.

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I have aquestion. I was a little confused by Senator Di Nino’s explicationof this issue. I have not spoken on this issue before, although Ifind it rather interesting from an historic standpoint. First, isthere not a clear distinction in the honourable senator’s mindbetween receiving “honours” and being appointed to the Houseof Lords?

Senator Di Nino: Both Bennett and Beaverbrook wereappointed to the House of Lords after the 1919 legislation.Precedents have occurred.

Senator Grafstein: That was not my question. The question isnot with respect to what has happened, but is with respect towhether there is not, in his own mind, a distinction betweensomeone being appointed to the House of Lords, for instance,and someone being called to the Senate to receive an order or anhonour. Senator Di Nino referred to Senator Bosa, who receivedmany honours, both from Italy and from Spain, for his verydistinguished work in international organizations. Surely there isa distinction between that and being appointed to an upperchamber. I want to know if the honourable senators makes thatdistinction, or does he blur the line?

Senator Di Nino: I do not think it is a question of “blurringthe line”. Senator Grafstein is talking about degrees of honours. Ido not think it is up to us on this side to decide which honour onewould receive in another country. If the question being asked ofus, as Canadians, was whether we should allow someone toreceive a Canadian honour for benefits that Canadians havereceived from a particular person, I might make a distinction. Iagree with him on that point. However, that is not something wemust be concerned about. It is the country that is offering thathonour. Whether it is at this level or at another level, it is still anhonour to a Canadian for services rendered to that country.


Senator Grafstein: If I may make a further clarification onthis subject, the honourable senator used two examples: Bennettand Beaverbrook. Both of those right honourable gentlemenchose, if my recollection is correct, to live permanently in theUnited Kingdom. After making a decision to live permanentlythere, they were then called to the House of Lords. Am I correctin that? The honourable senator used those as examples in thisparticular case.

Senator Di Nino: I cannot answer that question, other than bysaying, as we have been told, that Mr. Black would have decidedto reside in England if that honour had been bestowed upon him.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, there are somewonderful, important questions being raised here this afternoon.Perhaps they will be developed further as the debate continues.

Senator Di Nino stated that two members of Parliament,namely, Eleni Bakopanos and Senator Bosa, received what wewould call foreign honours. In Senator Di Nino’s travels — sincehe occupies a unique position — has he encountered Canadianswho sit in upper and lower chambers in other countries of theworld? I have been told there are many, but I have not yet beenable to discover how many there are or who they are. Forinstance, I am told that in Latvia there is a Canadian woman. Yes,there are honours and there are seats in Parliaments. They areboth appointed and decided upon by the sovereign. I have begunto develop an interest in Canadians in general who are sitting inother countries of the world as members of both chambers. Doesthe honourable senator have any information on that?

Senator Di Nino: I am not sure whether I would use the word“Canadian”. The president of either Latvia or Lithuania came toCanada after the war, returned to Latvia to take up permanentresidency and was then elected President of Latvia. There are acouple of others in other pre-Soviet Union countries — that is,the Eastern Bloc — who ran for Parliament and were elected.Their names escape me, but I am not sure whether they wouldnow consider themselves Canadian, other than those who oncewere Canadian but are now residents and citizens of anothercountry.

Senator Cools: In the House of Lords, there is also anothergroup of Canadians. The Conrad Black appointment wassupposed to be that of a non-hereditary lord. Among thehereditary lords, apparently, there is a clutch of Canadians. Theinformation is not easy to find.

I think the real question is on the entitlement of a person withdual British-Canadian citizenship in terms of appointments orhonours. I thank the honourable senator for bringing that issueforward. The Queen in Canada is the Queen of Canada, just asthe Queen is also the Queen of the United Kingdom. I knowmany people view this as a cryptic and arcane point; however,we do have a Queen of Canada and a Queen of England. Theseissues are complex. Mr. Black is in a unique position because hehas a foot in both camps.

I once found myself in a similar position. I belong to one ofthose families that Senator Di Nino is talking about. By virtue ofbeing British West Indian, we could vote in elections in Canada,whereas Italians could not. I view that as a worthy privilege.Thank you very much, Senator Di Nino.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition):Honourable senators, whether it is agreed or not, I think the leastSenator Di Nino deserves is a lifetime subscription to theNational Post and, in my opinion, Senator LeBreton should offerthat immediately.

On motion of Senator LeBreton, debate adjourned.

NATIONAL DEFENCE

MOTION TO ESTABLISH SPECIAL SENATE COMMITTEE TO EXAMINECONDUCT OF PERSONNEL IN RELATION TO THE SOMALIA

DEPLOYMENT AND THE DESTRUCTION OF MEDICAL RECORDS OFPERSONNEL SERVING IN CROATIA—MOTION STANDS

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition),pursuant to notice of November 2, 1999, moved:

That a Special Committee of the Senate be appointed toexamine and report on two significant matters whichinvolve the conduct of chain of command of the CanadianForces, both in-theatre and at National DefenceHeadquarters and its response to operational, decisionmaking and administrative problems encountered during theSomalia deployment to the extent that these matters havenot been examined by the Commission of Inquiry into theDeployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia and allegationsthat Canadian soldiers were exposed to toxic substances inCroatia between 1993 and 1995, and the alleged destructionof medical records of personnel serving in Croatia.

That the Committee in examining these issues may callwitnesses from whom it believes it may obtain evidencerelevant to these matters including but not limited to:

1. The present Minister of Defence in relation to bothmatters;

2. Former Ministers of National Defence in relation toboth matters;

3. The then Deputy Minister of National Defence inrelation to both matters;

4. The then Acting Chief of Staff of the Minister ofNational Defence in relation to the Somaliaoccurrence;

5. The then special advisor to the Minister of NationalDefence (M. Campbell) in relation to the Somaliaoccurrence;


6. The then special advisor to the Minister of NationalDefence (J. Dixon) in relation to the Somaliaoccurrence;

7. The persons occupying the position of Judge AdvocateGeneral during the relevant period in relation to theSomalia occurrence;

8. The then Deputy Judge Advocate General (litigation)in relation to the Somalia occurrence; and

9. The then Chief of Defence Staff and Deputy Chief ofDefence Staff in relation to both occurrences.

That seven Senators nominated by the Committee ofSelection act as members of the Special Committee, andthat three members constitute a quorum;

That the Committee have power to send for persons,papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, toreport from time to time and to print such papers andevidence from day to day as may be ordered by theCommittee;

That the Committee have power to authorize televisionand radio broadcasting, as it deems appropriate, of any or allof its proceedings;

That the Committee have the power to engage theservices of such counsel and other professional, technical,clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for thepurposes of its examination;

That the political parties represented on the SpecialCommittee be granted allocations for expert assistance withthe work of the Committee;

That it be empowered to adjourn from place to placewithin and outside Canada;

That the Committee have the power to sit during sittingsand adjournments of the Senate;

That the Committee submit its report not later than oneyear from the date of it being constituted, provided that, ifthe Senate is not sitting, the report will be deemed submittedon the day such report is deposited with the Clerk of theSenate.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, consideringthe hour, I am willing to forego my comments on this motionuntil another day on the assumption that it will remain at thefifteenth-day status it has now.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, is itagreed to keep Motion No. 7 at its fifteenth-day status?

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government):Honourable senators, we on this side agree to the proposition thatSenator Lynch-Staunton’s motion retain its standing on the OrderPaper, even though he will not speak to it today.


Motion stands.

The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, February 9, 2000, at1:30 p.m.

APPENDIX

Officers of the Senate

The Ministry

Senators

(Listed according to seniority, alphabetically and by provinces)

Committees of the Senate

ii February 8, 2000SENATE DEBATES

THE SPEAKER

THE HONOURABLE GILDAS L. MOLGAT

THE LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT

THE HONOURABLE J. BERNARD BOUDREAU, P. C.

THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

THE HONOURABLE JOHN LYNCH-STAUNTON

____________

OFFICERS OF THE SENATE

CLERK OF THE SENATE AND CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS

PAUL BÉLISLE

DEPUTY CLERK, PRINCIPAL CLERK, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

GARY O’BRIEN

PRINCIPAL CLERK, PROCEDURE

CHARLES ROBERT

LAW CLERK AND PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL

MARK AUDCENT

USHER OF THE BLACK ROD

MARY MCLAREN

iiiSENATE DEBATESFebruary 8, 2000

THE MINISTRYAccording to Precedence

___________

(February 8, 2000)___________

The Right Hon. Jean Chrétien Prime MinisterThe Hon. Herbert Eser Gray Deputy Prime MinisterThe Hon. Lloyd Axworthy Minister of Foreign Affairs

The Hon. David M. Collenette Minister of TransportThe Hon. David Anderson Minister of the EnvironmentThe Hon. Ralph E. Goodale Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible

for the Canadian Wheat BoardThe Hon. Sheila Copps Minister of Canadian HeritageThe Hon. John Manley Minister of IndustryThe Hon. Paul Martin Minister of Finance

The Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton Minister of National DefenceThe Hon. Anne McLellan Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

The Hon. Allan Rock Minister of HealthThe Hon. Lawrence MacAulay Solicitor General of Canada

The Hon. Alfonso Gagliano Minister of Public Works and Government ServicesThe Hon. Lucienne Robillard President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for

InfrastructureThe Hon. Martin Cauchon Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic

Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)The Hon. Jane Stewart Minister of Human Resources Development

The Hon. Stéphane Dion President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada andMinister of Intergovernmental Affairs

The Hon. Pierre Pettigrew Minister of International TradeThe Hon. Don Boudria Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

The Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau Leader of the Government in the SenateThe Hon. Lyle Vanclief Minister of Agriculture and Agri-FoodThe Hon. Herb Dhaliwal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

The Hon. Claudette Bradshaw Minister of LabourThe Hon. George Baker Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State

(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)The Hon. Robert Daniel Nault Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

The Hon. Maria Minna Minister for International CooperationThe Hon. Elinor Caplan Minister for Citizenship and Immigration

The Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew Secretary of State (Children and Youth)The Hon. Raymond Chan Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)

The Hon. Hedy Fry Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)The Hon. David Kilgour Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)

The Hon. James Scott Peterson Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)The Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification)

and FrancophonieThe Hon. Andrew Mitchell Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic

Development Initiative for Northern OntarioThe Hon. Gilbert Normand Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development)The Hon. Denis Coderre Secretary of State (Amateur Sport)

iv February 8, 2000SENATE DEBATES

SENATORS OF CANADAACCORDING TO SENIORITY

(February 8, 2000)

Senator Designation Post Office Address

THE HONOURABLE

Herbert O. Sparrow Saskatchewan North Battleford, Sask.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker Ste-Rose Winnipeg, Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Edward M. Lawson Vancouver Vancouver, B.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bernard Alasdair Graham, P.C. The Highlands Sydney, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Raymond J. Perrault, P.C. North Shore-Burnaby North Vancouver, B.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Louis-J. Robichaud, P.C. L’Acadie-Acadia Saint-Antoine, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jack Austin, P.C. Vancouver South Vancouver, B.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Willie Adams Nunavut Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lowell Murray, P.C. Pakenham Ottawa, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. William Doody Harbour Main-Bell Island St. John’s, Nfld.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Peter Alan Stollery Bloor and Yonge Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Peter Michael Pitfield, P.C. Ontario Ottawa, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .William McDonough Kelly Port Severn Mississauga, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E. Leo Kolber Victoria Westmount, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Michael Kirby South Shore Halifax, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jerahmiel S. Grafstein Metro Toronto Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Anne C. Cools Toronto-York Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Charlie Watt Inkerman Kuujjuaq, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Daniel Phillip Hays Calgary Calgary, Alta.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Joyce Fairbairn, P.C. Lethbridge Lethbridge, Alta.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Colin Kenny Rideau Ottawa, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pierre De Bané, P.C. De la Vallière Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Eymard Georges Corbin Grand-Sault Grand-Sault, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brenda Mary Robertson Riverview Shediac, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jean-Maurice Simard Edmundston Edmundston, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Michel Cogger Lauzon Knowlton, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Norman K. Atkins Markham Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ethel Cochrane Newfoundland Port-au-Port, Nfld.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Eileen Rossiter Prince Edward Island Charlottetown, P.E.I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mira Spivak Manitoba Winnipeg, Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Roch Bolduc Golfe Sainte-Foy, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gérald-A. Beaudoin Rigaud Hull, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pat Carney, P.C. British Columbia Vancouver, B.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gerald J. Comeau Nova Scotia Church Point, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Consiglio Di Nino Ontario Downsview, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Donald H. Oliver Nova Scotia Halifax, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Noël A. Kinsella New Brunswick Fredericton, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .John Buchanan, P.C. Nova Scotia Halifax, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mabel Margaret DeWare New Brunswick Moncton, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .John Lynch-Staunton Grandville Georgeville, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .James Francis Kelleher, P.C. Ontario Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J. Trevor Eyton Ontario Caledon, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wilbert Joseph Keon Ottawa Ottawa, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Michael Arthur Meighen St. Marys Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Normand Grimard Quebec Noranda, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thérèse Lavoie-Roux Quebec Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J. Michael Forrestall Dartmouth and Eastern Shore Dartmouth, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Janis Johnson Winnipeg-Interlake Winnipeg, Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Eric Arthur Berntson Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Sask.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. Raynell Andreychuk Regina Regina, Sask.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jean-Claude Rivest Stadacona Quebec, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ronald D. Ghitter Alberta Calgary, Alta.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Terrance R. Stratton Red River St. Norbert, Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vSENATE DEBATESFebruary 8, 2000

ACCORDING TO SENIORITY


THE HONOURABLE

Marcel Prud’homme, P.C. La Salle Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fernand Roberge Saurel Ville Saint-Laurent, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Leonard J. Gustafson Saskatchewan Macoun, Sask.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Erminie Joy Cohen New Brunswick Saint John, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .David Tkachuk Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Sask.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W. David Angus Alma Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pierre Claude Nolin De Salaberry Quebec, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marjory LeBreton Ontario Manotick, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gerry St. Germain, P.C. Langley-Pemberton-Whistler Maple Ridge, B.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lise Bacon De la Durantaye Laval, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sharon Carstairs Manitoba Victoria Beach, Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Landon Pearson Ontario Ottawa, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jean-Robert Gauthier Ottawa-Vanier Ottawa, Ontario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .John G. Bryden New Brunswick Bayfield, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rose-Marie Losier-Cool New Brunswick Bathurst, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Céline Hervieux-Payette, P.C. Bedford Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .William H. Rompkey, P.C. Newfoundland North West River, Labrador, Nfld.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lorna Milne Peel County Brampton, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marie-P. Poulin Northern Ontario Ottawa, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Shirley Maheu Rougemont Ville Saint-Laurent, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nicholas William Taylor Sturgeon Bon Accord, Alta.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Léonce Mercier Mille Isles Saint-Élie d’Orford, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wilfred P. Moore Stanhope St./Bluenose Chester, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lucie Pépin Shawinegan Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fernand Robichaud, P.C. New Brunswick Saint-Louis-de-Kent, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Catherine S. Callbeck Prince Edward Island Central Bedeque, P.E.I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marisa Ferretti Barth Repentigny Pierrefonds, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Serge Joyal, P.C. Kennebec Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thelma J. Chalifoux Alberta Morinville, Alta.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Joan Cook Newfoundland St. John’s, Nfld.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ross Fitzpatrick Okanagan-Similkameen Kelowna, B.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Very Reverend Dr. Lois M. Wilson Toronto Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Francis William Mahovlich Toronto Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Calvin Woodrow Ruck Dartmouth Dartmouth, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Richard H. Kroft Manitoba Winnipeg, Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Douglas James Roche Edmonton Edmonton, Alta.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Joan Thorne Fraser De Lorimier Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aurélien Gill Wellington Mashteuiatsh, Pointe-Bleue, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vivienne Poy Toronto Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sheila Finestone, P.C. Montarville Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ione Christensen Yukon Whitehorse, Yukon Territory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .George Furey Newfoundland St. John’s, Nfld.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Melvin Perry Poirier Prince Edward Island St. Louis, P.E.I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nick G. Sibbeston Northwest Territories Fort Simpson, N.W.T.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Isobel Finnerty Ontario Burlington, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J. Bernard Boudreau, P.C. Nova Scotia Halifax, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi February 8, 2000SENATE DEBATES

SENATORS OF CANADA

ALPHABETICAL LIST

(February 8, 2000)


THE HONOURABLE

Adams, Willie Nunavut Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Andreychuk, A. Raynell. Regina Regina, Sask.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Angus, W. David Alma Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Atkins, Norman K. Markham Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Austin, Jack, P.C. Vancouver South Vancouver, B.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bacon, Lise De la Durantaye Laval, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Beaudoin, Gérald-A. Rigaud Hull, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Berntson, Eric Arthur Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Sask.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bolduc, Roch Golfe Sainte-Foy, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Boudreau, J. Bernard, P.C. Nova Scotia Halifax, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bryden, John G. New Brunswick Bayfield, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Buchanan, John, P.C. Nova Scotia Halifax, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Callbeck, Catherine S. Prince Edward Island Central Bedeque, P.E.I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Carney, Pat, P.C. British Columbia Vancouver, B.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Carstairs, Sharon Manitoba Victoria Beach, Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chalifoux, Thelma J. Alberta Morinville, Alta.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Christensen, Ione Yukon Territory Whitehorse, Yukon Territory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cochrane, Ethel Newfoundland Port-au-Port, Nfld.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cogger, Michel Lauzon Knowlton, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cohen, Erminie Joy New Brunswick Saint John, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Comeau, Gerald J. Nova Scotia Church Point, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cook, Joan Newfoundland St. John’s, Nfld.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cools, Anne C. Toronto-York Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Corbin, Eymard Georges Grand-Sault Grand-Sault, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .De Bané, Pierre, P.C. De la Vallière Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DeWare, Mabel Margaret New Brunswick Moncton, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Di Nino, Consiglio Ontario Downsview, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Doody, C. William Harbour Main-Bell Island St. John’s, Nfld.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Eyton, J. Trevor Ontario Caledon, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fairbairn, Joyce, P.C. Lethbridge Lethbridge, Alta.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ferretti Barth, Marisa Repentigny Pierrefonds, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Finestone, Sheila, P.C. Montarville Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Finnerty, Isobel Ontario Burlington, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fitzpatrick, Ross Okanagan-Similkameen Kelowna, B.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Forrestall, J. Michael Dartmouth and Eastern Shore Dartmouth, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fraser, Joan Thorne De Lorimier Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Furey, George Newfoundland St. John’s, Nfld.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gauthier, Jean-Robert Ottawa-Vanier Ottawa, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ghitter, Ronald D. Alberta Calgary, Alta.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gill, Aurélien Wellington Mashteuiatsh, Pointe-Bleue, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Grafstein, Jerahmiel S. Metro Toronto Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Graham, Bernard Alasdair, P.C. The Highlands Sydney, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Grimard, Normand Quebec Noranda, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gustafson Leonard J. Saskatchewan Macoun, Sask.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hays, Daniel Phillip Calgary Calgary, Alta.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hervieux-Payette, Céline, P.C. Bedford Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Johnson, Janis Winnipeg-Interlake Winnipeg, Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Joyal, Serge, P.C. Kennebec Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kelleher, James Francis, P.C. Ontario Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kelly, William McDonough Port Severn Mississauga, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kenny, Colin Rideau Ottawa, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Keon, Wilbert Joseph Ottawa Ottawa, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kinsella, Noël A. New Brunswick Fredericton, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

viiSENATE DEBATESFebruary 8, 2000


THE HONOURABLE

Kirby, Michael South Shore Halifax, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kolber, E. Leo. Victoria Westmount, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kroft, Richard H. Manitoba Winnipeg, Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lavoie-Roux, Thérèse Quebec Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lawson, Edward M. Vancouver Vancouver, B.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LeBreton, Marjory Ontario Manotick, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Losier-Cool, Rose-Marie New Brunswick Bathurst, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lynch-Staunton, John Grandville Georgeville, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maheu, Shirley. Rougemont Ville Saint-Laurent, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mahovlich, Francis William Toronto Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Meighen, Michael Arthur St. Marys Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mercier, Léonce Mille Isles Saint-Élie d’Orford, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Milne, Lorna Peel County Brampton, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Molgat, Gildas L. Speaker Ste-Rose Winnipeg, Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Moore, Wilfred P. Stanhope St./Bluenose Chester, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Murray, Lowell, P.C. Pakenham Ottawa, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nolin, Pierre Claude De Salaberry Quebec, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oliver, Donald H. Nova Scotia Halifax, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pearson, Landon Ontario Ottawa, Ontario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pépin, Lucie Shawinegan Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Perrault, Raymond J., P.C. North Shore-Burnaby North Vancouver, B.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Perry Poirier, Melvin Prince Edward Island St. Louis, P.E.I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pitfield, Peter Michael, P.C. Ontario Ottawa, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Poulin, Marie-P. Northern Ontario Ottawa, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Poy, Vivienne Toronto Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Prud’homme, Marcel, P.C. La Salle Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rivest, Jean-Claude. Stadacona Quebec, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Roberge, Fernand Saurel Ville Saint-Laurent, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robertson, Brenda Mary Riverview Shediac, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robichaud, Fernand, P.C. New Brunswick Saint-Louis-de-Kent, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robichaud, Louis-J., P.C. L’Acadie-Acadia Saint-Antoine, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Roche, Douglas James Edmonton Edmonton, Alta.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rompkey, William H., P.C.. Newfoundland North West River, Labrador. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rossiter, Eileen Prince Edward Island Charlottetown, P.E.I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ruck, Calvin Woodrow Dartmouth Dartmouth, N.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .St. Germain, Gerry, P.C. Langley-Pemberton-Whistler Maple Ridge, B.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sibbeston, Nick Northwest Territories Fort Simpson, N.W.T.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Simard, Jean-Maurice Edmundston Edmundston, N.B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sparrow, Herbert O. Saskatchewan North Battleford, Sask.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Spivak, Mira Manitoba Winnipeg, Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stollery, Peter Alan Bloor and Yonge Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stratton, Terrance R. Red River St. Norbert, Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Taylor, Nicholas William Sturgeon Bon Accord, Alta.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tkachuk, David Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Sask.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Watt, Charlie Inkerman Kuujjuaq, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wilson, The Very Reverend Dr. Lois M. Toronto Toronto, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii February 8, 2000SENATE DEBATES

SENATORS OF CANADA

BY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY

(February 8, 2000)

ONTARIO—24


THE HONOURABLE

1 Lowell Murray, P.C. Pakenham Ottawa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Peter Alan Stollery Bloor and Yonge Toronto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Peter Michael Pitfield, P.C. Ontario Ottawa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 William McDonough Kelly Port Severn Missassauga. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Jerahmiel S. Grafstein Metro Toronto Toronto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Anne C. Cools Toronto-York Toronto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Colin Kenny Rideau Ottawa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Norman K. Atkins Markham Toronto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Consiglio Di Nino Ontario Downsview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 James Francis Kelleher, P.C. Ontario Sault Ste. Marie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 John Trevor Eyton Ontario Caledon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Wilbert Joseph Keon Ottawa Ottawa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Michael Arthur Meighen St. Marys Toronto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Marjory LeBreton Ontario Manotick. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Landon Pearson Ontario Ottawa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Jean-Robert Gauthier Ottawa-Vanier Ottawa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Lorna Milne Peel County Brampton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Marie-P. Poulin Northern Ontario Ottawa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 The Very Reverend Dr. Lois M. Wilson Toronto Toronto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Francis William Mahovlich Toronto Toronto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Vivienne Poy Toronto Toronto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Isobel Finnerty Ontario Burlington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ixSENATE DEBATESFebruary 8, 2000

SENATORS BY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY

QUEBEC—24


THE HONOURABLE

1 E. Leo Kolber Victoria Westmount. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Charlie Watt Inkerman Kuujjuaq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Pierre De Bané, P.C. De la Vallière Montreal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Michel Cogger Lauzon Knowlton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Roch Bolduc Golfe Sainte-Foy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Gérald-A. Beaudoin Rigaud Hull. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 John Lynch-Staunton Grandville Georgeville. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Jean-Claude Rivest Stadacona Quebec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Marcel Prud’homme, P.C La Salle Montreal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Fernand Roberge Saurel. Ville de Saint-Laurent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 W. David Angus Alma Montreal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Pierre Claude Nolin De Salaberry. Quebec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Lise Bacon De la Durantaye Laval. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Céline Hervieux-Payette, P.C. Bedford Montreal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Shirley Maheu Rougemont Ville de Saint-Laurent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Léonce Mercier Mille Isles Saint-Élie d’Orford. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Lucie Pépin Shawinegan Montreal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Marisa Ferretti Barth Repentigny Pierrefonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Serge Joyal, P.C. Kennebec Montreal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Joan Thorne Fraser De Lorimier Montreal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Aurélien Gill Wellington Mashteuiatsh, Pointe-Bleue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Sheila Finestone, P.C. Montarville Montreal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x February 8, 2000SENATE DEBATES

SENATORS BY PROVINCE—MARITIME DIVISION

NOVA SCOTIA—10


THE HONOURABLE

1 Bernard Alasdair Graham, P.C. The Highlands Sydney. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Michael Kirby South Shore Halifax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Gerald J. Comeau Nova Scotia Church Point. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Donald H. Oliver Nova Scotia Halifax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 John Buchanan, P.C. Nova Scotia Halifax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 J. Michael Forrestall Dartmouth and Eastern Shore Dartmouth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Wilfred P. Moore Stanhope St./Bluenose Chester. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Calvin Woodrow Ruck Dartmouth Dartmouth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 J. Bernard Boudreau, P.C. Nova Scotia Halifax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NEW BRUNSWICK—10

THE HONOURABLE

1 Louis-J. Robichaud, P.C. L’Acadie-Acadia Saint-Antoine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Eymard Georges Corbin Grand-Sault Grand-Sault. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Brenda Mary Robertson Riverview Shediac. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Jean-Maurice Simard Edmundston Edmundston. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Noël A. Kinsella New Brunswick Fredericton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Mabel Margaret DeWare New Brunswick Moncton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Erminie Joy Cohen New Brunswick Saint John. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 John G. Bryden New Brunswick Bayfield. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Rose-Marie Losier-Cool New Brunswick Bathurst. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Fernand Robichaud, P.C. New Brunswick Saint-Louis-de-Kent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND—4

THE HONOURABLE

1 Eileen Rossiter Prince Edward Island Charlottetown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Catherine S. Callbeck Prince Edward Island Central Bedeque. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Melvin Perry Poirier Prince Edward Island St. Louis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiSENATE DEBATESFebruary 8, 2000

SENATORS BY PROVINCE—WESTERN DIVISION

MANITOBA—6


THE HONOURABLE

1 Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker Ste-Rose Winnipeg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Mira Spivak Manitoba Winnipeg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Janis Johnson Winnipeg-Interlake Winnipeg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Terrance R. Stratton Red River St. Norbert. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Sharon Carstairs Manitoba Victoria Beach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Richard H. Kroft Manitoba Winnipeg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BRITISH COLUMBIA—6

THE HONOURABLE

1 Edward M. Lawson Vancouver Vancouver. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Raymond J. Perrault, P.C. North Shore-Burnaby North Vancouver. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Jack Austin, P.C. Vancouver South Vancouver. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Pat Carney, P.C. British Columbia Vancouver. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Gerry St. Germain, P.C. Langley-Pemberton-Whistler Maple Ridge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Ross Fitzpatrick Okanagan-Similkameen Kamloops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SASKATCHEWAN—6

THE HONOURABLE

1 Herbert O. Sparrow Saskatchewan North Battleford. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Eric Arthur Berntson Saskatchewan Saskatoon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 A. Raynell Andreychuk Regina Regina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Leonard J. Gustafson Saskatchewan Macoun. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 David Tkachuk Saskatchewan Saskatoon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ALBERTA—6

THE HONOURABLE

1 Daniel Phillip Hays Calgary Calgary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Joyce Fairbairn, P.C. Lethbridge Lethbridge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Ronald D. Ghitter Alberta Calgary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Nicholas William Taylor. Sturgeon Bon Accord. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Thelma J. Chalifoux Alberta Morinville. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Douglas James Roche Edmonton Edmonton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xii February 8, 2000SENATE DEBATES

SENATORS BY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY

NEWFOUNDLAND—6


THE HONOURABLE

1 C. William Doody Harbour Main-Bell Island St. John’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Ethel Cochrane Newfoundland Port-au-Port. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 William H. Rompkey, P.C. Newfoundland North West River, Labrador. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Joan Cook Newfoundland St. John’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 George Furey Newfoundland St. John’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES—1

THE HONOURABLE

1 Nick G. Sibbeston Northwest Territories Fort Simpson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NUNAVUT—1

THE HONOURABLE

1 Willie Adams Nunavut Rankin Inlet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

YUKON TERRITORY—1

THE HONOURABLE

1 Ione Christensen Yukon Territory Whitehorse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiiiSENATE DEBATESFebruary 8, 2000

DIVISIONAL SENATORS


THE HONOURABLE

1 Normand Grimard Quebec Noranda, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Thérèse Lavoie-Roux Quebec Montreal, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiv February 8, 2000SENATE DEBATES

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF STANDING, SPECIAL AND JOINT COMMITTEES(As of February 8, 2000)

*Ex Officio Member

ABORIGINAL PEOPLES

Chair: Honourable Senator Watt Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator St. GermainHonourable Senators:Andreychuk,

Austin,

Boudreau,(or Hays)

Chalifoux,

Christensen,

DeWare,

Gill,

Johnson,

*Lynch-Staunton,(or Kinsella)

Pearson,

Sibbeston,

St. Germain,

Watt.

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of SelectionAndreychuk, Austin, Beaudoin, *Boudreau (or Hays), Chalifoux, Christensen, Comeau, DeWare, Gill, Johnson

*Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Pearson, Sibbeston, Watt.___________________________________________________________________________________________

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

Chair: Honourable Senator Gustafson Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator FairbairnHonourable Senators:Boudreau,(or Hays)

Chalifoux,

Fairbairn,

Fitzpatrick,

Ferretti Barth,

Gill,

Gustafson,


Oliver,

Robichaud,(Saint-Louis-de-Kent)

Rossiter,

Sparrow,

St. Germain,

Stratton.

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection*Boudreau (or Hays), Chalifoux, Fairbairn, Fitzpatrick, Ferretti Barth, Gill, Gustafson, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella),

Oliver, Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Sparrow, Spivak, St. Germain, Stratton.__________________________________________________________________________________________

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY(Agriculture and Forestry)

Chair: Honourable Senator Fitzpatrick Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator St. GermainHonourable Senators:*Boudreau,(or Hays)

Fairbairn,

Fitzpatrick,

Gill,


St. Germain,

Stratton.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

xvSENATE DEBATESFebruary 8, 2000

BANKING, TRADE AND COMMERCE

Chair: Honourable Senator Kolber Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator TkachukHonourable Senators:Angus,

*Boudreau(or Hays)

Fitzpatrick,

Furey,

Hervieux-Payette,

Kelleher,

Kenny,

Kolber,

Kroft,

Joyal,


Meighen,

Oliver,

Tkachuk.

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of SelectionAngus, *Boudreau (or Hays), Fitzpatrick, Furey, Hervieux-Payette, Joyal, Kelleher, Kenny, Kolber,

*Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Meighen, Oliver, Tkachuk.__________________________________________________________________________________________

ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Chair: Honourable Senator Spivak Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator TaylorHonourable Senators:Adams,

*Boudreau,(or Hays)

Buchanan,

Chalifoux,

Christensen,

Cochrane,

Eyton,

Finnerty,

Kelleher,

Kenny,


Sibbeston,

Spivak,

Taylor.

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of SelectionAdams, *Boudreau (or Hays), Buchanan, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cochrane, Eyton, Furey,

Kenny, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Sibbeston, Spivak, St. Germain, Taylor.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

FISHERIES

Chair: Honourable Senator Comeau Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator RobichaudHonourable Senators:*Boudreau,(or Hays)

Carney

Comeau,

Cook,

Furey,

Johnson,


Mahovlich,

Meighen,

Perrault,

Perry,

Robertson,


Watt.

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection*Boudreau (or Hays), Carney, Comeau, Cook, Doody, Furey, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Mahovlich,

Meighen, Murray, Perrault, Perry, Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Watt.__________________________________________________________________________________________

xvi February 8, 2000SENATE DEBATES

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Chair: Honourable Senator Stollery Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator AndreychukHonourable Senators:Andreychuk,

Atkins,

Bolduc,

*Boudreau,(or Hays)

Carney,

Corbin,

De Bané

Di Nino

Grafstein,


Stollery,

Taylor.

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of SelectionAndreychuk, Atkins, Bolduc, *Boudreau (or Hays), Corbin, Carney, De Bané, Di Nino, Grafstein,

Lewis, Losier-Cool, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Stewart, Stollery.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION

Chair: Honourable Senator Rompkey Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator NolinHonourable Senators:*Boudreau(or Hays)

Cohen,

Comeau,

De Bané,

DeWare,

Forrestall,

Kelly,

Kenny,

Kroft,


Maheu,

Milne,

Nolin,

Poulin,


Rompkey,

Stollery.

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection*Boudreau (or Hays), Cohen, De Bané, DeWare, Forrestall, Kelly, Kenny, Kroft, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella),

Maheu, Milne, Nolin, Poulin, Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Rompkey, Rossiter, Stollery.__________________________________________________________________________________________

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

Chair: Honourable Senator Milne Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator BeaudoinHonourable Senators:Beaudoin,

Buchanan,

*Boudreau(or Hays),

Cools,

Fraser,

Ghitter,

Joyal,


Milne,

Moore,

Nolin,

Pearson,

Poy.

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of SelectionAndreychuk, Beaudoin, *Boudreau (or Hays), Cools, Fraser, Ghitter, Joyal, Kelleher,

*Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Milne, Moore, Nolin, Pearson, Poy.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

xviiSENATE DEBATESFebruary 8, 2000

LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT (Joint)

Joint Chair: Honourable Senator Deputy Chair:Honourable Senators:Atkins,

Finnerty,

Grafstein,

Grimard,

Poy, Robichaud,(L’Acadie-Acadia).

Ruck.

Original Members agreed to by Motion of the SenateAtkins, Finnerty, Grafstein, Poy, Robichaud (L’Acadie-Acadia), Ruck.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

NATIONAL FINANCE

Chair: Honourable Senator Murray Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator CoolsHonourable Senators:Bolduc,

*Boudreau,(or Hays)

Cools,

Doody,

Finestone,

Finnerty,

Ferretti Barth,

Kinsella,


Mahovlich,

Moore,

Murray,

Stratton.

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of SelectionBolduc, *Boudreau (or Hays), Cools, Finestone, Finnerty, Ferretti Barth, Kinsella,

*Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Mahovlich, Moore, Murray, Perry, Stratton.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

OFFICIAL LANGUAGES (Joint)

Joint Chair: Honourable Senator Losier-Cool Deputy Chair:Honourable Senators:Beaudoin,

Fraser,

Gauthier,

Losier-Cool,

Meighen,

Rivest,

Robichaud,(L’Acadie-Acadia).

Original Members agreed to by Motion of the SenateBeaudoin, Fraser, Gauthier, Losier-Cool, Meighen, Pépin, Rivest, Robichaud (L’Acadie-Acadia).

__________________________________________________________________________________________

xviii February 8, 2000SENATE DEBATES

PRIVILEGES, STANDING RULES AND ORDERS

Chair: Honourable Senator Austin Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator GrimardHonourable Senators:Austin,

Beaudoin,

*Boudreau,(or Hays)

Corbin,

DeWare,

Di Nino,

Gauthier,

Grafstein,

Grimard,

Joyal,

Kelly,

Kroft,

Losier-Cool,


Robichaud,(L’Acadie-Acadia).

Rossiter.

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of SelectionAustin, Bacon, Beaudoin, *Boudreau (or Hays), DeWare, Gauthier, Ghitter, Grafstein, Grimard, Joyal,Kelly, Kroft, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Maheu, Pépin, Robichaud (L’Acadie-Acadia), Rossiter.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS (Joint)

Joint Chair: Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette Deputy Chair:Honourable Senators:Cochrane,

Finestone,

Furey,

Grimard,

Hervieux-Payette,

Moore,

Perry,

Rivest.

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of SelectionCochrane, Finestone, Furey, Grimard, Hervieux-Payette, Moore, Perry, Rivest.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SELECTION

Chair: Honourable Senator Mercier Deputy Chair:Honourable Senators:Atkins,

Austin,

*Boudreau,(or Hays)

DeWare,

Fairbairn,

Grafstein,

Kinsella,

Kirby,


Mercier,

Murray.

Original Members agreed to by Motion of the SenateAtkins, Austin, *Boudreau (or Hays), DeWare, Fairbairn, Grafstein, Kinsella,

Kirby, *Lynch-Staunton or (Kinsella), Mercier, Murray.__________________________________________________________________________________________

xixSENATE DEBATESFebruary 8, 2000

SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Chair: Honourable Senator Kirby Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator LeBretonHonourable Senators:*Boudreau,(or Hays)

Callbeck,

Carstairs,

Cohen,

Cook,

Fairbairn,

Gill,

Keon,

LeBreton,


Murray,

Pépin,

Roberston,

Robichaud,(Saint-Louis-de-Kent).

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection*Boudreau (or Hays), Callbeck, Carstairs, Cohen, Cook, Di Nino, Fairbairn, Gill, Kirby,

Lavoie-Roux, LeBreton, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Pépin, Robertson.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO UPDATE “OF LIFE AND DEATH”(Social Affairs, Science and Technology)

Chair: Honourable Senator Carstairs Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator BeaudoinHonourable Senators:*Boudreau,(or Hays)

Carstairs,

Keon,


Pépin,

Robertson,

Robichaud,(Saint-Louis-de-Kent).

__________________________________________________________________________________________

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

Chair: Honourable Senator Bacon Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator ForrestallHonourable Senators:Bacon,

*Boudreau,(or Hays)

Callbeck,

Finestone,

Forrestall,

Johnson,

Kirby,

LeBreton,


Maheu,

Perrault,

Poulin,

Roberge,

Spivak.

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of SelectionAdams, Bacon, *Boudreau (or Hays), Callbeck, Finestone, Forrestall, Johnson, Kirby,

LeBreton, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Perrault, Poulin, Roberge, Spivak.__________________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE PAGE

CONTENTS


Visitors in the GalleryThe Hon. the Speaker 547. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS

Black History Month 2000Senator Oliver 547. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Northwest TerritoriesFort Liard Meeting—Motion on Oil and Gas DevelopmentSenator Sibbeston 547. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Late Halinka DyerTribute. Senator St. Germain 548. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Toponomy Commission of QuebecSenator Bacon 549. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vimy HouseSenator Atkins 549. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alzheimer’s Awareness MonthSenator Callbeck 550. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Supreme CourtDecision on Right to Francophone School inSummerside, Prince Edward Island. Senator Callbeck 550. . . . . . .

The Late Anne HébertTribute. Senator Pépin 551. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Nisga’a Final Agreement and AppendicesNisga’a Nation Taxation AgreementTabled. Senator Hays 551. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FisheriesReport of Committee Requesting Authorization to EngageServices and Travel Presented. Senator Comeau 551. . . . . . . . . . . .

AdjournmentSenator Hays 552. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Criminal CodeBill to Amend—First Reading. 552. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Financing of Post-Secondary EducationNotice of Inquiry. Senator Atkins 552. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

QUESTION PERIOD

Foreign AffairsAustria—Possible Recall of Ambassador in Response toAppointment of Joerg Haider in New Government.

Senator Kinsella 552. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senator Boudreau 552. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Human Resources DevelopmentJob Creation Programs—Possible Mismanagement of Funds—Request for Tabling of Reference Documents Used byPrime Minister in Response to Questions. Senator LeBreton 553. .

Senator Boudreau 553. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PovertyRequest for Programs to Eliminate Conditions. Senator Roche 554. .Senator Boudreau 554. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IndustryNova Scotia—Loss of Jobs at Royal Bank Offices in Halifax.Senator Oliver 555. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senator Boudreau 555. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Purchase of Canada Trust by Toronto Dominion Bank—Request for Figures on Resultant Loss of Jobs.

Senator Di Nino 555. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senator Boudreau 555. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Human Resources DevelopmentJob Creation Programs—Possible Mismanagement of Funds—Responsibility of Minister. Senator Meighen 555. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Senator Boudreau 556. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senator Angus 556. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senator Hays 557. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senator Lynch-Staunton 557. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senator Kinsella 557. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Nisga’a Final Agreement Bill (Bill C-9)Second Reading—Debate Continued. Senator Gill 557. . . . . . . . . . . .Senator Taylor 560. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Defence ActDNA Identification ActCriminal Code (Bill S-10)Report of Committee Adopted. Senator Milne 560. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Royal Assent Bill (Bill S-7)Second Reading-–Debate Continued. Senator Poulin 561. . . . . . . . . .Senator Carstairs 563. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senator Grafstein 565. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senator Cools 565. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Criminal Code (Bill S-9)Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned.Senator Cools 566. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE PAGE

Criminal CodeCorrections and Conditional Release Act (Bill C-237)Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued.Senator Tkachuk 566. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Religious Freedom in China in Relation toUnited Nations International Covenants

Inquiry—Debate Continued. Senator Poy 567. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senator Kinsella 571. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distinguished Canadians and Their Involvementwith the United Kingdom

Inquiry—Debate Continued. Senator Di Nino 572. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Senator Prud’homme 572. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senator Grafstein 573. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senator Cools 574. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senator Lynch-Staunton 574. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National DefenceMotion to Establish Special Senate Committee to ExamineConduct of Personnel in Relation to the Somalia Departmentand the Destruction of Medical Records of Personnel Servingin Croatia—Motion Stands. Senator Lynch-Staunton 574. . . . . . .

Senator Hays 575. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Canada Post Corporation / Société canadienne des postes

Postage Paid Post payé

If undelivered, return COVER ONLY to:Public Works and Government Services Canada —Publishing

Available from Public Works and Government Services Canada —Publishing Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9

Hull, Québec, Canada K1A 0S945 Sacré-Coeur Boulevard,

03159442